Evidence that points to other suspects

[accordn2me]

I liked this article: "On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study" It is always nice to hear both sides, you know. ;)

Hey...I'm learning to knit....you think the beanies will still work if I knit some covers for 'em?

[Otter]

I liked this article: "On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study" It is always nice to hear both sides, you know. ;)

But is the empirical evidence direct or circumstantial? Never mind Sun, I understand both! :D

[enlightenme]

There y'all go with the letters again....AFDB...:confused:

I can't read it....and there is a cute prosecutor on Court TV!:tongue:

Sorry A2M, Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie

Check out Adnoid's link when you're done salavating over Mr. Jackson. :D

[accordn2me]

I'm confused. I have read that Scott should not have been convicted because there was no:

--Physical evidence
--Hard evidence
--Real evidence
--DNA evidence
--Concrete evidence

None of which appear in CACI 202. :shrug:But there was concrete evidence. The defense provided their own concrete expert. :shrug:

[accordn2me]

Sorry A2M, Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie

Check out Adnoid's link when you're done salavating over Mr. Jackson. :D
OMG! I need to tackle him. He just said he didn't know what's in an Amaretto Sour...and that is probably a "froux, froux" drink! No it is not! It's not, is it? NO! I don't think so....I haven't heard anything else he's said....between that, the washing machine and Buddy....OK and the wine...there, I said it!

[Wudge]

It is your own opinion there was no unique evidence that went to malice, this is not a fact. I think there was plenty of evidence showing malice aforethought ( it appears the Judge may have agreed). JMO

Cite the unique evidence that could only go to malice aforethought but not to premeditaion and deliberation. .

[accordn2me]

Cite the unique evidence that could only go to malice aforethought but not to premeditaion and deliberation. .Is this a trick? How can you have malice aforethought w/out premeditation &/or deliberation?

[One2Snoop]

OMG! I need to tackle him. He just said he didn't know what's in an Amaretto Sour...and that is probably a "froux, froux" drink! No it is not! It's not, is it? NO! I don't think so....I haven't heard anything else he's said....between that, the washing machine and Buddy....OK and the wine...there, I said it!

Starting a little early today aren't we? :beer: http://i19.tinypic.com/3ymx4j6.gif http://i19.tinypic.com/3ymx4j6.gif

[accordn2me]

Starting a little early today aren't we? :beer: http://i19.tinypic.com/3ymx4j6.gif http://i19.tinypic.com/3ymx4j6.gif

The bird made me!

[accordn2me]

Well, I was only commenting on the lie about the picture. I'm still on the fence over whether or not there was enough evidence presented to convict him. I'm leaning toward thinking there was, but I'm not taking a stand on that yet. I do think he probably did the deed, though.
I've been pondering this, Anne. And drinking wine....but...you need to get off the fence....something about fence sitting is not good but I don't remember what is wrong with it....something about getting spewed out.....no....I don't know.

Lemme tell ya what I needed: 1. The prediction (Amber is a necessity)

2. the boat & fishing trip

3. the research ( i could probably do without this but since i have it, i'll take it)

4. the bodies

The rest (e.g. the lies, lack of emotion, realtor conversations...) is lagniappe.

[One2Snoop]

I've been pondering this, Anne. And drinking wine....but...you need to get off the fence....something about fence sitting is not good but I don't remember what is wrong with it....something about getting spewed out.....no....I don't know.

Lemme tell ya what I needed: 1. The prediction (Amber is a necessity)

2. the boat & fishing trip

3. the research ( i could probably do without this but since i have it, i'll take it)

4. the bodies

The rest (e.g. the lies, lack of emotion, realtor conversations...) is lagniappe.

is lagniappe - little gifts from Scott? I guess thats an interesting way of putting it. *LOL* :read:

[Otter]

Okay, my thoughts on malice aforethought. That was Conner, not Laci, Laci was premeditated WITH malice aforethought (can't have one without the other with premeditation). Without Laci, he was not to be, so in his depraved heart, it all worked out. No Laci, no Conner. I shoot a bullet through person A, it passes through killing person B. The fact that I pulled the trigger is malice in regard to person B.

I will not put myself into the dynamics of the jury room.

If SP still loved Laci but did not want Conner, MOO, he could've gone into the nursery and smothered him. SIDS. Maybe even SP could not have done that, but Laci was easy to get rid of, he was finished with her anyway.

Two birds with one stone.

One premeditated as has been outlined ad nauseum, the other simply collateral damage.

Results the same. No wife, no baby.

IMO.

[accordn2me]

is lagniappe - little gifts from Scott? I guess thats an interesting way of putting it. *LOL* :read:
well...when you look up the definition...it doesn't sound like the best word does it.....hmmmm, I always used it like "a little something extra." :rose:

BTW, did you listen to the pronounciation? If not, it sounds like /lan-yap/.

[Wudge]

Okay, my thoughts on malice aforethought. That was Conner, not Laci, Laci was premeditated WITH malice aforethought (can't have one without the other with premeditation). Without Laci, he was not to be, so in his depraved heart, it all worked out. No Laci, no Conner. I shoot a bullet through person A, it passes through killing person B. The fact that I pulled the trigger is malice in regard to person B.

I will not put myself into the dynamics of the jury room.

If SP still loved Laci but did not want Conner, MOO, he could've gone into the nursery and smothered him. SIDS. Maybe even SP could not have done that, but Laci was easy to get rid of, he was finished with her anyway.

Two birds with one stone.

One premeditated as has been outlined ad nauseum, the other simply collateral damage.

Results the same. No wife, no baby.

IMO.


If Scott were to have murdered Laci with premeditation (planned and intended) and deliberation, then, as night follows day, Conner would logically have been a target too. In legal circles, the jury's split verdict is looked upon as infirmed. It evidences either fallacious logic by the jury and/or a weakness in the relied upon evidence.

[accordn2me]

Okay, my thoughts on malice aforethought. That was Conner, not Laci, Laci was premeditated WITH malice aforethought (can't have one without the other with premeditation). Without Laci, he was not to be, so in his depraved heart, it all worked out. No Laci, no Conner. I shoot a bullet through person A, it passes through killing person B. The fact that I pulled the trigger is malice in regard to person B.
I will not put myself into the dynamics of the jury room.

If SP still loved Laci but did not want Conner, MOO, he could've gone into the nursery and smothered him. SIDS. Maybe even SP could not have done that, but Laci was easy to get rid of, he was finished with her anyway.

Two birds with one stone.

One premeditated as has been outlined ad nauseum, the other simply collateral damage.

Results the same. No wife, no baby.

IMO.

(my bold) How is it malice toward person B? Sounds like manslaughter or negligent homicide to me. I'd prosecute you for the former.

[One2Snoop]

well...when you look up the definition...it doesn't sound like the best word does it.....hmmmm, I always used it like "a little something extra." :rose:

BTW, did you listen to the pronounciation? If not, it sounds like /lan-yap/

*LOL* Is there a link for that? :biggrin:

[accordn2me]

*LOL* Is there a link for that? :biggrin:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lagniappe

click on the little blue speaker just after the word and it will say it for you


note: It doesn't pronounce "Louisiana" correctly. It should sound like this: /lou-z-ana/

If you go to myspace page or download the song "Amos Moses" by Jerry Reed you'll hear it correctly.

[Otter]

If Scott were to have murdered Laci with premeditation (planned and intended) and deliberation, then, as night follows day, Conner would logically have been a target too. In legal circles, the jury's split verdict is looked upon as infirmed. It evidences either fallacious logic by the jury and/or a weakness in the relied upon evidence.

Of course Conner was a target. But killing Laci killed Conner. They were both expendable in his world.

I'll be frank, the 2nd on Conner confused me. But as I said, I won't put myself in the jurors' dynamics. IMO, they split, for what reason ... ???? Fallacious, I don't know. At that point what difference did make? They were convinced of premeditated on Laci.

Common sense. He premeditated Laci's murder, the baby died with her. They knew that, I know that and you know that.

The evidence was solid. And if you don't have to say "IMO", either do I.

[One2Snoop]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lagniappe

click on the little blue speaker just after the word and it will say it for you


note: It doesn't pronounce "Louisiana" correctly. It should sound like this: /lou-z-ana/

If you go to myspace page or download the song "Amos Moses" by Jerry Reed you'll hear it correctly.

*LOL* I was just kidding - but thanks for the link. I'll be sure to check it out. :seeya:

[Otter]

(my bold) How is it malice toward person B? Sounds like manslaughter or negligent homicide to me. I'd prosecute you for the former.

Weird example a2m! But if I fire a gun AT someone, I intend for them to die. The fact that someone else dies was NOT my intent. The fact I used deadly force doesn't negate that two people died. Person B's bad luck for getting killed by my intent to kill person A is on me. Not him.

Manslaughter to me is like a bar fight or some such thing. I hit some dude with a bottle to hurt him, but I hurt him so bad he dies. I'm driving drunk, I don't intend to kill anyone, but I do.

Its the use of deadly force that causes the death of another. That's the difference. MOO!

Does that make sense? Hopefully Wudge will correct me. :D

[accordn2me]

*LOL* I was just kidding - but thanks for the link. I'll be sure to check it out. :seeya:

don't confuse me...you know i've been drinkin'

[accordn2me]

Weird example a2m! But if I fire a gun AT someone, I intend for them to die. The fact that someone else dies was NOT my intent. The fact I used deadly force doesn't negate that two people died. Person B's bad luck for getting killed by my intent to kill person A is on me. Not him.

Manslaughter to me is like a bar fight or some such thing. I hit some dude with a bottle to hurt him, but I hurt him so bad he dies. I'm driving drunk, I don't intend to kill anyone, but I do.

Its the use of deadly force that causes the death of another. That's the difference. MOO!

Does that make sense? Hopefully Wudge will correct me. :Dumm...can i have 2 answers :biggrin: yes & no

now. let me pick at this...

first, firing a gun at someone is deadly force...however, you could just intend for them to stop....whatever....if they die, then i hope you were justified in using deadly force

second, if you kill someone during the commission of another crime...like armed robbery...that is second degree murder...or a judge could instruct on manslaughter....

when a vehicle is involved....DUI, and such....i know negligent homicide comes into the picture but i'm not sure if it could in my last example....

2me, malice means intent. like in your initial example...you had malice toward person A but not person B (the dummy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time - Darwin got him, not you) No, that's just wrong....in light of those VT students who were in the wrong place at the wrong time....no Darwin to that! That killer was laced with malice, not at anyone in particular....at everyone! Thank God he took himself out of the gene pool.:flamemad:

[JustMyOpinion]

I've been pondering this, Anne. And drinking wine....but...you need to get off the fence....something about fence sitting is not good but I don't remember what is wrong with it....something about getting spewed out.....no....I don't know.

Lemme tell ya what I needed: 1. The prediction (Amber is a necessity)

2. the boat & fishing trip

3. the research ( i could probably do without this but since i have it, i'll take it)

4. the bodies

The rest (e.g. the lies, lack of emotion, realtor conversations...) is lagniappe.

1. The prediction (Amber is a necessity)
Agree. Amber also testified that he told her he'd be traveling for awhile, but would be available by the end of January.

[JustMyOpinion]

Okay, my thoughts on malice aforethought. That was Conner, not Laci, Laci was premeditated WITH malice aforethought (can't have one without the other with premeditation). Without Laci, he was not to be, so in his depraved heart, it all worked out. No Laci, no Conner. I shoot a bullet through person A, it passes through killing person B. The fact that I pulled the trigger is malice in regard to person B.

I will not put myself into the dynamics of the jury room.

If SP still loved Laci but did not want Conner, MOO, he could've gone into the nursery and smothered him. SIDS. Maybe even SP could not have done that, but Laci was easy to get rid of, he was finished with her anyway.

Two birds with one stone.

One premeditated as has been outlined ad nauseum, the other simply collateral damage.

Results the same. No wife, no baby.

IMO.

I agree with this.

[JustMyOpinion]

Cite the unique evidence that could only go to malice aforethought but not to premeditaion and deliberation. .
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/187-199.html
SNIP:188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart. When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.

According to Shawn Sibley,Scott first represented himself as single, never married, he told her he lost his soulmate in college, indicated he was seeking a soulmate. ( "Skinny" IIRC) Shawn warned Scott if she sets him up with Amber, he has to be serious in his intentions ( as Amber has had previous bad experiences with other men) According to Amber, he first represented himself as single, living in Sacramento. According to Sibley, she confronted him about learning he was married, he then told her he lost his wife, cried, begged her to let him tell Amber. Told Amber he lost his wife ( cried), said he would spend his first holiday alone. She testified he also told her he would be traveling from late Dec on, but would be available by the end of January. He claims he told Laci about his affair with Amber in early December ( because "it was the right thing to do"), but it's evident he continued to conceal the fact he had a living, pregnant wife from Amber Frey. Later, Scott & Laci pawned some of Laci's jewelry for cash on the day he later escorts Amber to a formal party, while Laci is left to attend a party alone ( testimony established Laci told others he wasn't able to attend the party with her because he was working).
I think this is some of the evidence showing malice, there's no question in my mind that when it came to Laci, Scott had developed an abandoned & malignant heart.

[JustMyOpinion]

If Scott were to have murdered Laci with premeditation (planned and intended) and deliberation, then, as night follows day, Conner would logically have been a target too. In legal circles, the jury's split verdict is looked upon as infirmed. It evidences either fallacious logic by the jury and/or a weakness in the relied upon evidence.


I disagree with your opinion it evidences fallacious logic by the jury or a weakness in the relied upon evidence.
The target was Laci, ( the lost wife, the lost soulmate) Conner had not yet been born, he was not yet "separated" from Laci.

[Wudge]

Of course Conner was a target. But killing Laci killed Conner. They were both expendable in his world.

I'll be frank, the 2nd on Conner confused me. But as I said, I won't put myself in the jurors' dynamics. IMO, they split, for what reason ... ???? Fallacious, I don't know. At that point what difference did make? They were convinced of premeditated on Laci.

Common sense. He premeditated Laci's murder, the baby died with her. They knew that, I know that and you know that.

The evidence was solid. And if you don't have to say "IMO", either do I.

The well recognized infirmity in the jury's split verdict is important, because it provides Scott yet another appeal issue; i.e., given the evidence did not show Conner's death was a premeditated and deliberated murder by Scott, then that same evidence could not have shown Laci's death was a premeditated and deliberated murder by Scott.

Courts do not cure such infirmities (juror error) by assumimg the worst for defendants.

[Wudge]

Weird example a2m! But if I fire a gun AT someone, I intend for them to die. The fact that someone else dies was NOT my intent. The fact I used deadly force doesn't negate that two people died. Person B's bad luck for getting killed by my intent to kill person A is on me. Not him.

Manslaughter to me is like a bar fight or some such thing. I hit some dude with a bottle to hurt him, but I hurt him so bad he dies. I'm driving drunk, I don't intend to kill anyone, but I do.

Its the use of deadly force that causes the death of another. That's the difference. MOO!

Does that make sense? Hopefully Wudge will correct me. :D


The use of deadly force to kill someone is not sufficient to show intent or to conclude either murder or an otherwise unlawful killing.

Just back from their honeymoon, a young husband, age 22, and his wife, age 46, are in the wife's mansion when a home invader breaks in yielding a shotgun. The invader grabs the wife and throws her against a wall. Then he turns to face the husband who has taken a gun out of a drawer. The husband kills the home invader with a shot through his heart. However, the bullet passes through the body of the home invader and kills his wife too.

Should the husband be charged with either murder or manslaughter? Should the insurance company pay on a double endemnity life insurance policy of 1 billion dollars the husband and wife had just taken out on her life alone the day before?

[Wudge]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/187-199.html
SNIP:188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart. When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.

According to Shawn Sibley,Scott first represented himself as single, never married, he told her he lost his soulmate in college, indicated he was seeking a soulmate. ( "Skinny" IIRC) Shawn warned Scott if she sets him up with Amber, he has to be serious in his intentions ( as Amber has had previous bad experiences with other men) According to Amber, he first represented himself as single, living in Sacramento. According to Sibley, she confronted him about learning he was married, he then told her he lost his wife, cried, begged her to let him tell Amber. Told Amber he lost his wife ( cried), said he would spend his first holiday alone. She testified he also told her he would be traveling from late Dec on, but would be available by the end of January. He claims he told Laci about his affair with Amber in early December ( because "it was the right thing to do"), but it's evident he continued to conceal the fact he had a living, pregnant wife from Amber Frey. Later, Scott & Laci pawned some of Laci's jewelry for cash on the day he later escorts Amber to a formal party, while Laci is left to attend a party alone ( testimony established Laci told others he wasn't able to attend the party with her because he was working).
I think this is some of the evidence showing malice, there's no question in my mind that when it came to Laci, Scott had developed an abandoned & malignant heart.

Per the trial evidence, there is no showing that prosecutors identified any unique evidence for malice.

[JustMyOpinion]

Per the trial evidence, there is no showing that prosecutors identified any unique evidence for malice.

I disagree. I.E. Shawn's testimony was evidence. Amber's testimony was evidence. Scott's own statements were in evidence. Pawn shop owner's testimony was evidence. Testimony from Laci's friends ( as to Laci's statements) was evidence. Photos were evidence. etc.

[Wudge]

I disagree. I.E. Shawn's testimony was evidence. Amber's testimony was evidence. Scott's own statements were in evidence. Pawn shop owner's testimony was evidence. Testimony from Laci's friends ( as to Laci's statements) was evidence. Photos were evidence. etc.


Did the prosecution uniquely sort out evidence that allegedly went only to malice?

[enlightenme]

Weird example a2m! But if I fire a gun AT someone, I intend for them to die. The fact that someone else dies was NOT my intent. The fact I used deadly force doesn't negate that two people died. Person B's bad luck for getting killed by my intent to kill person A is on me. Not him.

Manslaughter to me is like a bar fight or some such thing. I hit some dude with a bottle to hurt him, but I hurt him so bad he dies. I'm driving drunk, I don't intend to kill anyone, but I do.

Its the use of deadly force that causes the death of another. That's the difference. MOO!

Does that make sense? Hopefully Wudge will correct me. :D

He did, of course! :D

[Otter]

The well recognized infirmity in the jury's split verdict is important, because it provides Scott yet another appeal issue; i.e., given the evidence did not show Conner's death was a premeditated and deliberated murder by Scott, then that same evidence could not have shown Laci's death was a premeditated and deliberated murder by Scott.

Courts do not cure such infirmities (juror error) by assumimg the worst for defendants.


Conner's death was a sure thing once he murdered Laci. He didn't need to premeditate his death although he sure intended his death.

Kill Laci and he killed Conner at the same time. I got no problem with the second on him. Because the "infirmity" is well recognized by you doesn't make it so.

Did SP get a perfect trial? No, that's not possible. He received a fair trial, better represented than a large percentage of defendants. He was presumed innocent as he was entitled to be. He is not entitled to a post-conviction presumption that the criminal justice system is no better than a roll of the dice.

[Otter]

He did, of course! :D


:lol: Falliciously and erroneously, but that's only my opinion. :D

[accordn2me]

1. The prediction (Amber is a necessity)
Agree. Amber also testified that he told her he'd be traveling for awhile, but would be available by the end of January.
This is all you need to decide guilty? Honestly, this is what I put for my One Reason in the One Reason thread.

You know something else.....I had forgotten this until I started looking at this case closely when b/f made the statement he didn't think there was enough proof...however he put it....for Scott to be sitting on DR....I can't find not one thing that points away from Scott or lends a speck of doubt that he may not have done this. That's strange compared to all other CE cases I can think of.....they all have something else that makes you go.....:shrug:

[JustMyOpinion]

This is all you need to decide guilty? Honestly, this is what I put for my One Reason in the One Reason thread.

You know something else.....I had forgotten this until I started looking at this case closely when b/f made the statement he didn't think there was enough proof...however he put it....for Scott to be sitting on DR....I can't find not one thing that points away from Scott or lends a speck of doubt that he may not have done this. That's strange compared to all other CE cases I can think of.....they all have something else that makes you go.....:shrug:

Hi A2M..
The prior inconsistent statements ( lost wife, first holiday alone) weren't the only evidence I "needed", but it was essential to my own belief that this murder was premeditated, intentional, w/ malic aforethought. IMO..this was a calculated, cold, deliberate crime committed by a sociopath.

[JustMyOpinion]

Did the prosecution uniquely sort out evidence that allegedly went only to malice?

"Uniquely sort out"? Do you mean during their closing argument?

[Wudge]

"Uniquely sort out"? Do you mean during their closing argument?

Through witness testimony or anywhere.

[JustMyOpinion]

Through witness testimony or anywhere.

It is the jury's task to sort through the evidence during deliberations, IMO.
I will re-read Distaso's closing argument to see if he referred to evidence that goes to malice, offhand I don't recall.

[accordn2me]

That has got to be the least credible source of "information" ever. Not a single useful molecule. Those people are seriously screwed up.

You think they got problems....

I got a broke reputation spreader!:flamemad:

[Anne2719]

You think they got problems....

I got a broke reputation spreader!:flamemad:
Maybe you used up your daily allotment? Or tried to rep the same person twice in a row? Funny thing, these reps!

[accordn2me]

Maybe you used up your daily allotment? Or tried to rep the same person twice in a row? Funny thing, these reps!

:no: NOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:no:

I tried giving it to you, adnoid, O2S, enlightenme.....I can't give it to anybody! I'm going to have to start doing it publicly if it doesn't get fixed soon.

Also, now that I have 2 green squares I would like to purchase an extra icon privledge, please. 3 is not enough for me. I'm a rebus dependent :read:.

[accordn2me]

Okay little Ms. Acorn, whatever you're havin there, email me some!
I hope, just because I have a wine buzz, and forgot to say I tried giving you reputation...I hope you don't think I didn't try to give you some. It won't let me! Do you think it knows I'm drinking?

I'm being discriminated against!!!!!!!maybe because my !!!!!!!key is sticking

[JustMyOpinion]

Wudge, one of the jurors said that he waited for evidence to connect Scott from his house to the bay, but there was none. The bodies washed ashore there and this is what decided his guilt.
For the sentencing, they gave him death because of Amber.



Is this your own opinion?
Which juror said he waited for evidence to connect Scott from his house to the Bay? Do you have a link to that statement? TIA
Which jurors have said they gave him death because of Amber.. link please?
TIA

[accordn2me]

Wudge, one of the jurors said that he waited for evidence to connect Scott from his house to the bay, but there was none. The bodies washed ashore there and this is what decided his guilt.
For the sentencing, they gave him death because of Amber.

In other words they gave him death because he cheated on Laci. During the questioning by the atty.'s to see what jurors would be accepted, Mark asked Richelle what she thought of Scott having an affair. She said it was not bad.

Well, why did she vote death for him if it was not bad?Richelle Nice sat in judgment of Scott Lee Peterson. She along with 11 other jurors came to the conclusion, based on evidence presented during a trial, that Scott Lee Peterson murdered Laci Denise Peterson and Conner Peterson. Richelle and the other jurors had a choice of penalties for SLP - life in prison without parole, or the death penalty. Richelle and the other 11 jurors voted to fix SLP's penalty at death because his crime of murder of his wife and unborn son was a particularly heinous capital crime.

[Wudge]

Wudge, one of the jurors said that he waited for evidence to connect Scott from his house to the bay, but there was none. The bodies washed ashore there and this is what decided his guilt.
For the sentencing, they gave him death because of Amber.

In other words they gave him death because he cheated on Laci. During the questioning by the atty.'s to see what jurors would be accepted, Mark asked Richelle what she thought of Scott having an affair. She said it was not bad.

Well, why did she vote death for him if it was not bad?

Jurors revealed the verdict was absent motive. The only proof of inculpatory (substantial and sufficient) evidence that prosecutors presented regarded motive, but the jury found insufficient evidence to prove motive. Because inculpatory evidence is necessary to prove premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought, the verdict was wrongfully formed and rendered.

Reversals based on insufficient evidence draw jeopardy. Moreover, Judge Delucchi was asked by the defense to instruct the jury on manslaughter, but he declined. Upon appeal, Scott should be free.

[JustMyOpinion]

Reversals based on insufficient evidence draw jeopardy. Moreover, Judge Delucchi was asked by the defense to instruct the jury on manslaughter, but he declined. Upon appeal, Scott should be free.

In your own opinion.

[enlightenme]

Jurors revealed the verdict was absent motive. The only proof of inculpatory (substantial and sufficient) evidence that prosecutors presented regarded motive, but the jury found insufficient evidence to prove motive. Because inculpatory evidence is necessary to prove premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought, the verdict was wrongfully formed and rendered.

Reversals based on insufficient evidence draw jeopardy. Moreover, Judge Delucchi was asked by the defense to instruct the jury on manslaughter, but he declined. Upon appeal, Scott should be free.

I wonder what's taking so long for Scott's appellate attorneys to file an appeal? Do they not know what you know? Haven't you been in touch with them? Should be a "slam dunk" to get him freed. What's the delay?

[Wudge]

In your own opinion.

Fact. Jeopardy precludes second trials.

[frydaddy]

I see a lot of "Scott should be free" type posts. I find this humorous. What is all appeals fail? Is it just that many more experts who are wrong, while his advocates are right? Or will those advocates acknowledge being wrong? Since it will be quite a while til we find out, can someone please remind me of these pertinent questions, in case I forget?

[JustMyOpinion]

Fact. Jeopardy precludes second trials.

If or When a higher court actually reverses with jeopardy attached, it will be a fact.

[enlightenme]

I see a lot of "Scott should be free" type posts. I find this humorous. What is all appeals fail? Is it just that many more experts who are wrong, while his advocates are right? Or will those advocates acknowledge being wrong? Since it will be quite a while til we find out, can someone please remind me of these pertinent questions, in case I forget?

When Scott's appeals fail, the appellate court judges will be accused of:

1. stupidity
2. afraid of public opinion
3. part of the vast conspiracy to keep an innocent man incarcerated


Bank on it. ;)

[Wudge]

If or When a higher court actually reverses with jeopardy attached, it will be a fact.

That ... too.

[frydaddy]

When Scott's appeals fail, the appellate court judges will be accused of:

1. stupidity
2. afraid of public opinion
3. part of the vast conspiracy to keep an innocent man incarcerated


Bank on it. ;)

:beer: You nailed it!

[deputydi]

Fact. Jeopardy precludes second trials.
Not true. Many defendants have won the right to a new trial on appeal.

[deputydi]

Hey frydaddy - I love your posts! Have you ever noticed that the advocates all cry legal foul in order to free ISP. The media convicted him, the jurors were stupid, Brochinni lied about DUCK TAPE, Harvey lied about a GRILL LID (hahahahaha), but nobody ever says the guy didn't committ premeditated murder of a beautiful wife and baby son. Hmmm.......wonder why. :shrug:
Hmmmm . . . . :shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

Hey frydaddy - I love your posts! Have you ever noticed that the advocates all cry legal foul in order to free ISP. The media convicted him, the jurors were stupid, Brochinni lied about DUCK TAPE, Harvey lied about a GRILL LID (hahahahaha), but nobody ever says the guy didn't committ premeditated murder of a beautiful wife and baby son. Hmmm.......wonder why. :shrug:

Really? please read "evidence that points to innocence"...note that my conclusion was that Scott is FACTUALLY innocent...

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8831461&postcount=2

[Rachel Cory]

Hey frydaddy - I love your posts! Have you ever noticed that the advocates all cry legal foul in order to free ISP. The media convicted him, the jurors were stupid, Brochinni lied about DUCK TAPE, Harvey lied about a GRILL LID (hahahahaha), but nobody ever says the guy didn't committ premeditated murder of a beautiful wife and baby son. Hmmm.......wonder why. :shrug:
The guy didn't commit the premeditated murder of his beautiful wife and baby son. The media is in it for money, ratings and glory, some jurors are blind,deaf and easily manipulated, Brochinni is stupid and wasn't very good in his role, Harvey is a joke. Dissemble away.

[enlightenme]

The guy didn't commit the premeditated murder of his beautiful wife and baby son. The media is in it for money, ratings and glory, some jurors are blind,deaf and easily manipulated, Brochinni is stupid and wasn't very good in his role, Harvey is a joke. Dissemble away.



You really should include IMO!

I can't dissemble, I'm too busy laughing! :biggrin: IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

The guy didn't commit the premeditated murder of his beautiful wife and baby son. The media is in it for money, ratings and glory, some jurors are blind,deaf and easily manipulated, Brochinni is stupid and wasn't very good in his role, Harvey is a joke. Dissemble away.

I disagree that there is any evidence jurors were "blind, deaf & easily manipulated". Brocchini wasn't stupid, his actions early on gained evidence which was crucial to proving this case, IMO. Harvey Kemple's testimony wasn't key evidence which led to Scott's conviction, IMO. I don't think the ME, forensic anthropologist, Hydrologist, criminalist witnesses were "joking", and Defense failed to offer their own experts to challenge or contradict this testimony. JMO Of course Scott committed these murders, as his own lawyer opined.. the man is a sociopath and the State would have no problem getting a conviction. IMO

[Rachel Cory]

I want to apologize for the comment posted about Allen Brocchini. He is not stupid, and I regret saying it.

[thinkaboutit]

Hey frydaddy - I love your posts! Have you ever noticed that the advocates all cry legal foul in order to free ISP. The media convicted him, the jurors were stupid, Brochinni lied about DUCK TAPE, Harvey lied about a GRILL LID (hahahahaha), but nobody ever says the guy didn't committ premeditated murder of a beautiful wife and baby son. Hmmm.......wonder why. :shrug:

I'm not sure what you're referring to - or if I am included in those "advocates that cry legal foul in order to free ISP" - but I would guess that Scott's innocence wouldn't be brought up in those arguments since it is not a basis for a new trial/appeal.

[frydaddy]

Hey frydaddy - I love your posts! Have you ever noticed that the advocates all cry legal foul in order to free ISP. The media convicted him, the jurors were stupid, Brochinni lied about DUCK TAPE, Harvey lied about a GRILL LID (hahahahaha), but nobody ever says the guy didn't committ premeditated murder of a beautiful wife and baby son. Hmmm.......wonder why. :shrug:

Thank you TG, I appreciate ya!

I left out of town Friday, so I've got some catching up to do. But in responses to your posts and mine, did any of the advoates bother to answer what their response will be if the appeals all fail? Didn't see one as I skimmed, all I saw is retread statements.

:seeya:

[Beebee]

Hi A2M..
The prior inconsistent statements ( lost wife, first holiday alone) weren't the only evidence I "needed", but it was essential to my own belief that this murder was premeditated, intentional, w/ malic aforethought. IMO..this was a calculated, cold, deliberate crime committed by a sociopath.

How many "prior inconsistent statements" do you think would be produced if every person who cheated (in the MULTI-MILLIONS) had their phone calls taped or scorned cheating partners interviewed? I'm betting a whole lot!

Are all cheaters sociopaths? Was/Is Bill Clinton a sociopath? Just curious.

[JustMyOpinion]

How many "prior inconsistent statements" do you think would be produced if every person who cheated (in the MULTI-MILLIONS) had their phone calls taped or scorned cheating partners interviewed? I'm betting a whole lot!

Are all cheaters sociopaths? Was/Is Bill Clinton a sociopath? Just curious.

What does Bill Clinton have to do with Scott Peterson? Scott is a convicted murderer. The taped phone calls were only a small piece of the evidence that was brought forward at his trial.

[Hey Paula]

How many "prior inconsistent statements" do you think would be produced if every person who cheated (in the MULTI-MILLIONS) had their phone calls taped or scorned cheating partners interviewed? I'm betting a whole lot!

Are all cheaters sociopaths? Was/Is Bill Clinton a sociopath? Just curious.

How many unfaithful men tell their lovers they lost their wives and the upcoming holiday would be their first without them, and it then comes to pass by the wives turning up dead; their bodies found where the husbands had been when their wives disappeared?

[Beebee]

What does Bill Clinton have to do with Scott Peterson? Scott is a convicted murderer. The taped phone calls were only a small piece of the evidence that was brought forward at his trial.

They both cheated on their wives. Clinton probably still does, but that's JMO.

The taped calls were evidence of infidelity.

What other evidence was brought forward concerning murder?

[Beebee]

How many unfaithful men tell their lovers they lost their wives and the upcoming holiday would be their first without them, and it then comes to pass by the wives turning up dead; their bodies found where the husbands had been when their wives disappeared?

Paula,

Lord only knows what the many millions of men that cheat are telling the people they cheat with-- a huge majority of what they say concerning their spouse will be a lie. What do you think they say? I have a wife I love at home, we are expecting a baby, you are only temporary, now lets go have sex?

Also- we don't know what the context was of the alleged "I lost my wife". that was not taped. Don't you find it odd that Amber's married men seem to claim to be widowers? Scott was not the first, if he even said that, and Amber has her own credibility issues. Just ask her first baby daddy.

It was a typical fling. Nothing more. IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

They both cheated on their wives. Clinton probably still does, but that's JMO.

The taped calls were evidence of infidelity.

What other evidence was brought forward concerning murder?

??? The taped calls were evidence of Scott's state of mind, IMO.
If you wish to review all of the CE that was brought forward by the State during 19 weeks, I have no doubt you can locate a summary for review.

[Beebee]

??? The taped calls were evidence of Scott's state of mind, IMO.
If you wish to review all of the CE that was brought forward by the State during 19 weeks, I have no doubt you can locate a summary for review.

I've reviewed it already, LOL

I don't see ANY evidence of murder at all.

How can I discuss with you if you don't put out specific points?

[JustMyOpinion]

I've reviewed it already, LOL

I don't see ANY evidence of murder at all.

How can I discuss with you if you don't put out specific points?

The specific "points" have been posted and debated, I'm certain you can locate the threads/posts. IMO, you are not here to discuss evidence, since you "see" no evidence at all... Also, it was not "one, specific, point" that a jury deliberated prior to convicting Scott Peterson, it was the whole of the CE evidence that proved his guilt beyond their collective, reasonable doubt, IMO.

[Beebee]

The specific "points" have been posted and debated, I'm certain you can locate the threads/posts. IMO, you are not here to discuss evidence, since you "see" no evidence at all... Also, it was not "one, specific, point" that a jury deliberated prior to convicting Scott Peterson, it was the whole of the CE evidence that proved his guilt beyond their collective, reasonable doubt, IMO.

I wanted to discuss what YOU see as "evidence" but I guess you are having trouble coming up with one thing??

The recent Melanie McGuire was a CE case too. Collective CE. I could still list the damning evidence, without mentioning her two year affair. Why can't you do that here? My guess- there isn't any.

[accordn2me]

I wanted to discuss what YOU see as "evidence" but I guess you are having trouble coming up with one thing??

The recent Melanie McGuire was a CE case too. Collective CE. I could still list the damning evidence, without mentioning her two year affair. Why can't you do that here? My guess- there isn't any.
You must have missed this:

The following might not be in chronological order, as I am preparing the list as thoughts enter my mind:

1) Two weeks prior to Laci disappearing, Scott told Shawn Sibley and Amber that he'd lost his wife and the upcoming holidays would be his first without her. Since the last time Laci was known to be alive was around 8:30PM on 12/23, Christmas was Scott's first holdiay without his wife.

2) After having claimed he lost his wife, before she disappeared, Scott bought a boat, and kept it secret, even from his father.

3) He bought the boat from one who bore his surname (Bruce Peterson).

4) He never registered the boat (I know he had 30 days in which to do it. Nevertheless, he didn't register it, which is further evidence of his secrecy.)

5) He purchased a 2-day fishing license good for the days during his wife's disappearance.

6) He used his computer to search the areas (including the shipping channel) of the SF Bay, and tidal info, in the vicinity of where the bodies of Laci and Conner washed up.

7) He purchased a large bag of cement. During LE's immediate search of the warehouse, cement residue in the form of 5 circles, the shape of his one remaining homemade anchor.

8) The lifejacket which came with the boat was missing.

9) A rusty pliers was found on the floor of the boat with a strand of hair enmeshed in its teeth which, when tested for MtDNA, was consistent with Laci's.

10) Although, the night before, offering to pick up a fruit basket for Amy, Scott went fishing leaving very late in the morning, claiming it was too cold to golf, but not having called Amy advising her of the change in plans.

11) Despite having made phone calls while out on the SF Bay on 12/24, he neither answered Amy's call, nor returned it.

12) He gave inconsistent accounts of his whereabouts that day, telling some he was golfing, and others he was fishing.

13) On the first day of Laci having disappeared, he asked LE if they would be using cadaver dogs and requested grief counselors because they would be needed.

14) When being inverviewed by Gloria Gomez, during Laci's disappearance, his cell phone rang and he didn't answer it. (Knowing it wouldn't be about Laci having reappeared because he knew where she was having put her there himself)

15) While others cried during Laci's vigil, held within a week of her dsappearance, Scott chatted gayly with Amber, claiming he was in France at the Eiffel Tower.

16) When told about a siting of Laci at an out of state convenience store, Scott didn't go to view the videotape.

17) Scott made several covert trips to the SF Bay, a 180 miles roundtrip, in rented vehicles, gazing out into the water briefy, then leaving, never once asking LE about the searches.

18) Within weeks of Laci's disappearance he sold her car, attemped to sell the house, and ordered porn channels, cancelling them when LE was about to search the house again.

19) Although there were a number of local fishing spots, including lakes, Scott chose to fish 90 miles away, on Christmas Eve, leaving for a 3 hour roundtrip at nearly the noon hour, despite having dinner plans for early that evening.

20) The bodies of Laci and Conner washed up within 2 miles of where Scott had been fishing, 90 miles from home, on the day Laci disappeared.

21) During a TV interview with Diane Sawyer, Scott lied when he said he immediately told LE about his affair with Amber.

22) When LE confronted Scott with the photo of himself and Amber, taken at the Christmas party he attended with her, (while Laci went alone to the party she and Scott were to have attended) he denied it was him in the photo.

23) Not telling LE about his affair with Amber. An innocent man would have thought that perhaps his lover was responsible for his wife's disappearance after perhaps learning he was married.

24) Never calling LE to inquire about the investigation's progress.

25) Never calling LE to inquire if the bodies of the baby and woman's torso, which had washed ashore, were that of his son and wife.

26) Heading in the opposite direction when the bodies were identified, driving a Mercedes loaded with camping gear, his brother's driver's license, nearly $15,000 and Mexican pesos.

27) Changing his appearance by growing a goatee and dying it, along with his hair.


There might be more, but the above immediately came to mind. I invite other posters to add to the list.

28) Scott choosing to live Anne Bird's home early-on, until she asked him to leave ( her home was located in Berkeley, upper window had view of the Bay)

29) Photo of five, circular concrete residue imprints found on trailer in Scott's warehouse.

30) Pitcher found in warehouse where an object other than the anchor had been formed/molded.

31) Nobody tried to claim a 500,000 dollar reward for information leading to Laci's location/whereabouts.

32) Scott's shifting, changing statements about what he did with remainder of the bag of concrete.

33) Scott's shifting, changing statements about cuts on his hands.

34) Scott's shifting/changing statements about "fishing", "taking boat out".

35) Scott's detailed statements about mop & bucket and his claim that Laci told him she was planning to walk the dog.

36) Scott's claim that he wrapped umbrellas in tarp to load into the truck because it was raining.

37) Scott's claim that the "fishing trip" was a morning decision because it was too cold to golf, when he had purchased the fishing license with marine stamp on 12/20 and the dates 12/23 & 12/24 were filled in.

38) Scott's complete inability to give a description of the actual person Laci was,when asked to do so by Gloria Gomez.

39) Conner's nursery being used as a storage room, despite his claim that he awaited the little guy's return.

40) The description of what Laci was wearing the morning of 12/24 given by Scott did not match the remnants of clothing found on her remains.

42) The blouse Laci was wearing when last seen alive photographed in the clothes hamper on 12/24, her remains were clad in remnants of a bra.

43) Laci's diamond pendant being found on her dresser.

[JustMyOpinion]

I wanted to discuss what YOU see as "evidence" but I guess you are having trouble coming up with one thing??

.

Nope, no trouble at all.

[Hey Paula]

Paula,

Lord only knows what the many millions of men that cheat are telling the people they cheat with-- a huge majority of what they say concerning their spouse will be a lie. What do you think they say? I have a wife I love at home, we are expecting a baby, you are only temporary, now lets go have sex?

Also- we don't know what the context was of the alleged "I lost my wife". that was not taped. Don't you find it odd that Amber's married men seem to claim to be widowers? Scott was not the first, if he even said that, and Amber has her own credibility issues. Just ask her first baby daddy.

It was a typical fling. Nothing more. IMO

BB, my friend, you missed the most important part of my post. I'll post only that part below:

"and the upcoming holiday would be their first without them, and it then comes to pass by the wives turning up dead; their bodies found where the husbands had been when their wives disappeared".

IOW, how many cheaters, using the "I lost my wife" line, can actually predict when their wives would die?

[accordn2me]

How many unfaithful men tell their lovers they lost their wives and the upcoming holiday would be their first without them, and it then comes to pass by the wives turning up dead; their bodies found where the husbands had been when their wives disappeared? I wish I knew the answer, Paula.

I also wish I knew why the NGs can't see the fact that Laci being reported missing 15 days after Scott made his ominous prediction, and washing up 4 months later in the very area Scott chose to go after he had researched various other locations along with the bay area, is what makes this "common pick-up line" NOT!

[enlightenme]

I wanted to discuss what YOU see as "evidence" but I guess you are having trouble coming up with one thing??

The recent Melanie McGuire was a CE case too. Collective CE. I could still list the damning evidence, without mentioning her two year affair. Why can't you do that here? My guess- there isn't any.

Please! Get real! You think that millions of people that KNOW Scott is guilty are delusional?

Maybe you should be wondering about yourself?

JMO

[Hey Paula]

I wish I knew the answer, Paula.

I also wish I knew why the NGs can't see the fact that Laci being reported missing 15 days after Scott made his ominous prediction, and washing up 4 months later in the very area Scott chose to go after he had researched various other locations along with the bay area, is what makes this "common pick-up line" NOT!

Abolutely, A2M!

It is IMPOSSIBLE for an INNOCENT cheating man to use that line, with a specific time frame (the first holdiay without her) and then have the wife disappear, and her body appear where he was on the day she disappeared! IMPOSSIBLE!

[Beebee]

Please! Get real! You think that millions of people that KNOW Scott is guilty are delusional?

Maybe you should be wondering about yourself?

JMO

When did I use the word delusional?

That's YOUR word and I don't appreciate you slinging it in my direction. BTW, Scott Peterson has THOUSANDS of supporters. I guess they are all delusional too?

Grow up and realize some people think for themselves and "popular opinion" doesn't mean squat. It used to be popular opinion that the earth was flat. Didn't anybody ever tell you it is good to be able to think out of the box?

[Beebee]

Abolutely, A2M!

It is IMPOSSIBLE for an INNOCENT cheating man to use that line, with a specific time frame (the first holdiay without her) and then have the wife disappear, and her body appear where he was on the day she disappeared! IMPOSSIBLE!

Paula, do you know the lines married men use? Come on.... it's all BS.

It WAS around the holidays, so he needed an excuse why he wouldn't be spending them with Amber. It wasn't a prediction, IMO.

Did you expect him to say- I'll be spending Christmas with my pregnant wife, you are just a fling... Can we go have sex now?

[accordn2me]

Paula, do you know the lines married men use? Come on.... it's all BS.

It WAS around the holidays, so he needed an excuse why he wouldn't be spending them with Amber. It wasn't a prediction, IMO.

Did you expect him to say- I'll be spending Christmas with my pregnant wife, you are just a fling... Can we go have sex now? NO! Scott specifically said he would not be spending Christmas with his pregnant wife. And his words came true!

THE point is...when a married man says, "I lost my wife," and "this will be my first holidays without her," two-weeks before the holidays, and 15 days later she is reported missing and 4 months later her body washes up in the spot the married man that made the ominous prediction chose to go, after researching various other locations....THAT is what sets him apart from those other lying, cheating "cads."

[Beebee]

NO! Scott specifically said he would not be spending Christmas with his pregnant wife. And his words came true!

THE point is...when a married man says, "I lost my wife," and "this will be my first holidays without her," two-weeks before the holidays, and 15 days later she is reported missing and 4 months later her body washes up in the spot the married man that made the ominous prediction chose to go, after researching various other locations....THAT is what sets him apart from those other lying, cheating "cads."

You totally missed my point.

He made an excuse for Christmas time because it ALREADY WAS CHRISTMAS TIME. He had already done the tree thing with Amber. It WAS the SEASON.

He was talking (LYING) in present tense.

That's what cheaters do at Christmas time. They make up lies to their single g/f's about why they can't see them on certain days.

[Miss Bootsie]

You totally missed my point.

He made an excuse for Christmas time because it ALREADY WAS CHRISTMAS TIME. He had already done the tree thing with Amber. It WAS the SEASON.

He was talking (LYING) in present tense.

That's what cheaters do at Christmas time. They make up lies to their single g/f's about why they can't see them on certain days.

No, you totally missed Accord's point. imo
You totally dismiss all the other circumstances.

[JustMyOpinion]

You totally missed my point.

He made an excuse for Christmas time because it ALREADY WAS CHRISTMAS TIME. He had already done the tree thing with Amber. It WAS the SEASON.

He was talking (LYING) in present tense.

That's what cheaters do at Christmas time. They make up lies to their single g/f's about why they can't see them on certain days.

According to the evidence, he searched the tides/currents of Bay on Dec 8. He told Amber he lost his wife & would spend his first holiday alone on Dec 9.
He bought the boat on Dec 9. Sometime after that, he bought a bag of concrete, made at least one 8 lb anchor ( in evidence) molded/made another concrete item in the pitcher, ( pitcher in evidence) there were five circular imprints from concrete residue photographed on his trailer at the warehouse.( in evidence)
On 12/24, he reported Laci "missing", and he did spend his first holiday alone.
According to the ME ( his testimony was unchallenged & undisputed) Laci went into the water with Conner inside, where he remained until he was expelled via decomposition, animal feeding, tidal movement. The bodies washed ashore and they were found in different places on the shoreline (approx 2 miles from where he told police he went with his boat to go fishing in the Bay.) According to the Hydrologist ( his testimony was unchallenged and undisputed) the trajectory of Conner's body showed he was expelled from his mother's womb near where Scott told police he was "fishing". JMO

[accordn2me]

You totally missed my point.

He made an excuse for Christmas time because it ALREADY WAS CHRISTMAS TIME. He had already done the tree thing with Amber. It WAS the SEASON.

He was talking (LYING) in present tense.

That's what cheaters do at Christmas time. They make up lies to their single g/f's about why they can't see them on certain days.You totally missed Scott's point.

He was not making an excuse for Christmas, not at all. He was making an excuse for why he lied about being married. In that lie, he tried to make sure "it's too painful to talk about," that he wouldn't have to do any more explaining.

And then he set about making his "present tense lie" come true. And he accomplished that.

[accordn2me]

No, you totally missed Accord's point. imo
You totally dismiss all the other circumstances.
Yes, she did!

Miss Bootsie, didn't Scott have another, very specific false excuse for why he wouldn't be spending Christmas with Amber? He was going to be out-of-town with his family, or in Europe....what was it?

[Wudge]

Abolutely, A2M!

It is IMPOSSIBLE for an INNOCENT cheating man to use that line, with a specific time frame (the first holdiay without her) and then have the wife disappear, and her body appear where he was on the day she disappeared! IMPOSSIBLE!

Fallacious logic, which the jury did not find to be true. Moreover, the jury found that nothing proved motive.

[JustMyOpinion]

Yes, she did!

Miss Bootsie, didn't Scott have another, very specific false excuse for why he wouldn't be spending Christmas with Amber? He was going to be out-of-town with his family, or in Europe....what was it?

Yeah, in Kennebunkport ME with his family ( LOL), for holidays, then traveling in Europe .. she testified he told her he'd be available to spend more time with her in late-January. He certainly DID spend time with her on the phone in late-January, begged her to see him, offered to pay her cell phone bill, left her birthday gifts on Conner's due date Feb 10, including a CD entitled "Come Away With Me".

[enlightenme]

When did I use the word delusional?

That's YOUR word and I don't appreciate you slinging it in my direction. BTW, Scott Peterson has THOUSANDS of supporters. I guess they are all delusional too?

Grow up and realize some people think for themselves and "popular opinion" doesn't mean squat. It used to be popular opinion that the earth was flat. Didn't anybody ever tell you it is good to be able to think out of the box?

deleted ..................

[accordn2me]

deleted ..................

did you break the posting feature on this thread?

[accordn2me]

did you break the posting feature on this thread?

ok...now that's weird...i can post that..........but not a reply to JMO...

JMO...does someone have it in for you?

[accordn2me]

deleted ..................LEMME TRY TO SNEAK IT IN.........damn message board ain't gonna out smart me!

i'm going to put it in another thread


on another board if i have too!! :flamemad:

[accordn2me]

Yeah, in Kennebunkport ME with his family ( LOL), for holidays, then traveling in Europe .. she testified he told her he'd be available to spend more time with her in late-January. He certainly DID spend time with her on the phone in late-January, begged her to see him, offered to pay her cell phone bill, left her birthday gifts on Conner's due date Feb 10, including a CD entitled "Come Away With Me".

testing


TESTING IS TOO SHORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[accordn2me]

This message board is possessed. IT will not let me post a previously copied post to JMO!

Is there an exorcist in the house?

[Hey Paula]

This message board is possessed. IT will not let me post a previously copied post to JMO!

Is there an exorcist in the house?

Hi A2M!

I'm not following/understanding what the problem is? Can you explain?

TIA

[JustMyOpinion]

ok...now that's weird...i can post that..........but not a reply to JMO...

JMO...does someone have it in for you?

LOL, A2M. Who or why ? ( I haven't received any messages from mods)

[accordn2me]

Yeah, in Kennebunkport ME with his family ( LOL), for holidays, then traveling in Europe .. she testified he told her he'd be available to spend more time with her in late-January. He certainly DID spend time with her on the phone in late-January, begged her to see him, offered to pay her cell phone bill, left her birthday gifts on Conner's due date Feb 10, including a CD entitled "Come Away With Me".

What I said in the post that has been confiscated by this possessed message board was:

Maine.....THAT was Scott's "gone for Christmas" excuse/lie to Amber. It should not be confused with Scott's "sorry I lied about being married" excuse/lie, or his "don't ask me any more questions it hurts to talk about it" excuse/lie.

AND....those elaborate lies....and extra special meanings gifts, (i.e. CD (title) Pink Lady caramel apple, poetry - specifically chosen just for Amber) are not trademarks of a man about to end a "fling." Not to mention he was picking her daughter up from school, taking her on hikes/picnics....whatever!

[accordn2me]

LOL, A2M. Who or why ? ( I haven't received any messages from mods)
Because someone certainly better not have it in for me!:cool:

You see how I always think it's a problem with the other person, place, or thing! LOL! There's probably a name for that condition, isn't there....;)

[JustMyOpinion]

Because someone certainly better not have it in for me!:cool:

You see how I always think it's a problem with the other person, place, or thing! LOL! There's probably a name for that condition, isn't there....;)

ROTFL, A2M. Yes, but having the actual condition is always someone else's fault. LOL

[accordn2me]

Hi A2M!

I'm not following/understanding what the problem is? Can you explain?

TIA
Hey Paula! :seeya:

I have no idea! I copied a message that I was typing because I had a visitor. When I came back and pasted it and tried to post, it gave me some error message about the site couldn't display the page...blah, blah....

I tried quick reply and got the please wait......but nothing would post. Weird...


Can you help Mr. Wudge understand about motive? Did you see his reply to you....just down the page...on page 17 now.....for the life of me I can't get it through to him!

[accordn2me]

ROTFL, A2M. Yes, but having the actual condition is always someone else's fault. LOL That's for sure!:lol:

[Hey Paula]

Hey Paula! :seeya:

I have no idea! I copied a message that I was typing because I had a visitor. When I came back and pasted it and tried to post, it gave me some error message about the site couldn't display the page...blah, blah....

I tried quick reply and got the please wait......but nothing would post. Weird...


Can you help Mr. Wudge understand about motive? Did you see his reply to you....just down the page...on page 17 now.....for the life of me I can't get it through to him!

Thanks A2M! Welcome to The Twilight Zone, LOL!

I hadn't seen Wudge's reply to me. I'll look for it and reply to him!

:seeya:

[accordn2me]

Thanks A2M! Welcome to The Twilight Zone, LOL!

I hadn't seen Wudge's reply to me. I'll look for it and reply to him!

:seeya:
#670 this thread. starts out fallacious logic.....

i should steer clear of posts with the word "logic" in them :P

[Hey Paula]

Fallacious logic, which the jury did not find to be true. Moreover, the jury found that nothing proved motive.

Hi Wudge!

Why do you consider it fallacious logic to believe it is impossible for an innocent cheating man to accurately predict when his wife will die, then have her body turn up where he was on the day she disappeared? Can you cite a case where this happened and the wife was murdered by someone other than the husband?

Why do you feel the jury didn't agree with me? They convicted Scott, so they apparently felt as I did.

After reading "We the Jury....", it seems the jury believed Scott's main motive for killing Laci and Conner was personal freedom. Furthermore, proving/establishing motive is not a prerequisite to rendering a conviction.

IMO

[Beebee]

According to the evidence, he searched the tides/currents of Bay on Dec 8.


Do you know how long he viewed the alleged "research" pages?

Also, what does tide info on Dec. 8 have to do with tides affecting Brooks Island on Dec. 24?

[Beebee]

Yeah, in Kennebunkport ME with his family ( LOL), for holidays, then traveling in Europe .. she testified he told her he'd be available to spend more time with her in late-January. He certainly DID spend time with her on the phone in late-January, begged her to see him, offered to pay her cell phone bill, left her birthday gifts on Conner's due date Feb 10, including a CD entitled "Come Away With Me".


LOL

Too bad TMZ or the Smoking Gun can't wiretap all the cheaters out there, I have a feeling people like you would be hooked, LOL

[JustMyOpinion]

LOL

Too bad TMZ or the Smoking Gun can't wiretap all the cheaters out there, I have a feeling people like you would be hooked, LOL

Is there a particular reason you ignore the fact that Scott is a convicted murderer, and ..a reason why you attempt to insult others?

[Chocoholic]

Do you know how long he viewed the alleged "research" pages?

Also, what does tide info on Dec. 8 have to do with tides affecting Brooks Island on Dec. 24?

I may have read this wrong but if he researched tide information of the bay ON Dec 8, you can count on it that he found it for the entire month. It's usually how tide tables are published.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/get_predictions.shtml?year=2007&stn=1813+San+Francisco

[JustMyOpinion]

Do you know how long he viewed the alleged "research" pages?

Also, what does tide info on Dec. 8 have to do with tides affecting Brooks Island on Dec. 24?

Nope I wasn't there. From the evidence, I do know he zoomed in on the page. ( and, he could have printed the page, IMO)
As to your second question, have you viewed the page to ascertain what could be gleaned from it that could inform a person who was seeking a disposal site for a body as early as Dec 8? Someone posted a link to the current page, I think if you view this, it becomes evident.
JMO

[Beebee]

Is there a particular reason you ignore the fact that Scott is a convicted murderer, and ..a reason why you attempt to insult others?

I'm not trying to insult anyone, just trying to point out that some people are overly caught up in the not only the affair, but even what they think it should have been. Analyzing every word that came out of Scott Petersons mouth while on the phone with his fling. Or rather every word the prosecution wanted you to hear.

I'd rather discuss the (lack of) murder evidence that put an innocent man on death row.

Sorry if you see it as something else, especially something personal towards you or anyone else posting here, because that is just not how it is. That being said, I'll try to watch the sarcasm so I don't give off the wrong idea.

[Beebee]

Nope I wasn't there. From the evidence, I do know he zoomed in on the page. ( and, he could have printed the page, IMO)
As to your second question, have you viewed the page to ascertain what could be gleaned from it that could inform a person who was seeking a disposal site for a body as early as Dec 8? Someone posted a link to the current page, I think if you view this, it becomes evident.
JMO

current page? Scott accessed sites years ago.

I didn't write this, but it reflects exactly how I feel concerning the "secret boat" and "internet research".

Premeditated II – The “Secret” Boat & Internet Searches

In the Prosecution’s case against Scott Peterson, they suggested that prior to 7 December, he already knew that he was going to murder Laci and dispose of her body by putting it in the Bay. According to their theory he didn’t want anyone to know about the boat – it was to be a SECRET boat.

How would you go about purchasing a boat that you don’t want ANYONE to know about or be able to trace?

According to Scott Peterson, even though you have planned this all in advance, you don’t use the anonymity of buying a copy of the ModBee, leafing through the classifieds and then phoning up from a call box, no – you use your computer. You use it to look up advertisements, you call the owners from your own telephone and then you go one Monday morning, purchase the boat legally giving your correct name and address for the liability release forms (which will be sent to DMV) and then drive it back in broad daylight to your place of work and leave it there.

Are you confused? I am. One reason is that Scott Peterson evidently knew that the computer would sooner or later be searched by Law Enforcement. How do we know this? Because apparently, he specifically went on the home computer the morning of 24 December (with Laci’s body still in the house) to make it look like Laci was alive at that hour and viewing website. So how could he want the boat to be a secret if he placed all the information in a place where he knew MPD would find it?

If you suggest that he DIDN’T know the computers would be searched, then why was the home computer accessed by Scott? He’s sitting with a dead body in the house with him which he needs to dispose of and yet he can coolly surf the internet, viewing Gap scarves and umbrella stands?

Furthermore, if he had no idea the computers activity would be checked, why didn’t he also use the computer check how much weight is required to sink a body, or how easy or difficult it is for one to resurface? Why didn’t he research how soon Cadaver dogs can pick up a scent? Why was there no research into insurance policy payouts and the law? Since he’d already decided to kill Laci 23/24 December, then why didn’t he even check in advance what the weather was likely to be like those days? It could have been blowing a gale and then he would have had a real problem! All these topics are surely information that someone who has spent approximately 3 weeks planning a murder would have or should have read.

In truth, there was nothing incriminating whatsoever on those computers. What was “researched” was exactly what anyone purchasing and going out in a new boat on the Bay for the first time SHOULD have looked up. Had Laci never disappeared that day, but Scott had gone fishing, and later washed up drowned, there would be plenty of people who immediately would have asked “Which fool goes out in unfamiliar waters, in an unfamiliar boat without looking at the depths and currents etc. first.?”

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/misconceptions/boat.htm

[attorneywan2be]

It is obvious to me that Scott was accessing fishing sites looking for fishing information...he didn't specifically look for currents and tides...with that said, fishermen do look for currents and tides info to select the best spot for their fishing purposes..


Lydell Wall: Yes. This is another Yahoo Search Results page. Created on December 8th, 2002, at 9:46:42 p.m. Keywords were entered into the computer, and these are the results of that keyword request. That said "San Francisco Bay Fishing Report", and then the corresponding document associated with those keyword requests.
David Harris: When you say keywords are put into the computer, does the computer do this?
Lydell Wall: No, it's, these are the words that are entered into a box by the user saying this is the information that I'm requesting. So they type in the specific text that you see appear here, "San Francisco Bay Fishing Report".
David Harris: And the date and time of this document?
Lydell Wall: December 8th, 2002, at 9:46:42 p.m

------------------------------

Lydell Wall: F is another Yahoo search results page showing the corresponding search results for the keywords "Map", "San Francisco Bay", and "Chart".
David Harris: So at this point in time somebody is doing a Yahoo search where they typed in those words, "Map", "San Francisco Bay", "Chart".
Lydell Wall: That’s correct.

------------------------------------

Lydell Wall: This is another Yahoo Search results page. The keywords entered were "sturgeon", "fishing", "tackle". And it gives the results for those keywords, where the keyword would appear in these documents. And it was created on December 8th, 2002, at 10:07:42 p.m.
David Harris: X.
Lydell Wall: This is another Yahoo Search results page. That is "Sturgeon", "Fishing", "Tackle" is what was entered in to obtain the results. Created on 12/8/02 at 10:08:14 p.m.
David Harris: Y.
Lydell Wall: Y is a dated archived fishing report that dates from December of 2000 to February of 2001. And it talks about specific information. That was created on December 8th, 2002, at 10:07:56 p.m.
Judge Delucchi: What happened to X? You went from W to Y. Unless I'm missing something.
David Harris: I believe X was the sturgeon fishing.
Mark Geragos: Hold on. Go one before. Just want to show him something. W, sturgeon fishing tackle is t-a-c-k-e-l on W. And then if you turn on X, it's t-a-c-k-l-e.
Judge Delucchi: Okay. Corrected the spelling.
Mark Geragos: Right.
Judge Delucchi: All right. Now I'm straightened out. Go ahead.
David Harris: Going to Z.
Lydell Wall: This is another Yahoo Search page with the keywords "Sturgeon", "Fishing", "Tackle", "San" Francisco". That is created on December 8th, 2002, at 10:08:36 p.m.
David Harris: Double A.
Lydell Wall: I believe this is a portion of that USA Fishing Reports website. This is the daily fishing reports, "Hi's Tackle Box Presents." And it has a graphic image that would have been here in the middle. This document was created on 12/8/02 at 10:09:00 p.m.
David Harris: BB.
Lydell Wall: This is another portion of that Daily Fishing Report page, "Hi's Tackle Box Presents", "Ten Tips For Better Sturgeon Fishing." created 12/8/02 at 10:09, and I believe, I'll have to look closer. Looks like 10:09:28 p.m.
David Harris: CC.
Lydell Wall: This is, again, part of that same fishing highlights. This one titled "Moss Landing Daily Fishing Reports." Says "Today's Headlines, Monday, December 2nd, 2002." Talks about Dabs and Crabs. On December 8th, 2002, at 10:19:34 p.m. is when it was created on the computer.
David Harris: DD.
Lydell Wall: This is a Yahoo maps page. Address of Moss Landing was requested. Moss Landing, California. And in this area would have been a map the Moss Landing vicinity. That was created on 12/08/2002 at 10:20:08 p.m.

-----------------------

Mark Geragos: We know for a fact that the person didn't stay on that, on the, this is where, the one that I'm pointing to, which is I, which would be the Real Time Current Velocity Map with the other, we know the whole thing didn't come in until 9:53. And looks like that before the whole thing even came in, the person already, when the, the operator had already clicked on to the Fish and Game. So they left these, the tides, or the current, whatever it was, as soon as, even before it even practically all fully downloaded, they were on Fish and Game already, correct?
David Harris: I'm sorry, but counsel is saying that 9:53:04 is after 9:53:20?
Mark Geragos: No counsel is saying that, unlike what I was led to believe I, guess that the currents that are right here, that came in at 9:52:54, which loads, as your expert says, prior to the content which loaded at 9:53:20. Means that whoever the operator was had already gone on, because he didn't care about it, to the Department of Fish and Game. Isn't that what that means? He clicked on, as soon as he got to, before that thing
on to Fish and Game, right?
Lydell Wall: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. What was the next thing he clicked on to?
Lydell Wall: The Sport Fishing Fees website at 9:53:04.
Mark Geragos: I have got a 9:54:58. Is that the next thing?
Lydell Wall: You have to give me a frame of reference, what the last time was that you are looking at.
Mark Geragos: Right here. We have got Fish and Game Regulations. So this, would this be the first page?
Lydell Wall: That's, does that say 9:53:04 on it?
Mark Geragos: Yes.
Lydell Wall: The very next thing is 9:53:20, which is the Near Real Time Current Velocity Maps is created on the computer, how it's viewed.
Judge Delucchi: That's I, right?
Mark Geragos: Yes, right.
Mark Geragos: Now, the next spot that the person goes to
Lydell Wall: Would be 9:53:46.
Mark Geragos: Do you know what it was?
Lydell Wall: Yes. It's the Department of Fish and Game.

-------------------------

Mark Geragos: He doesn't go, user does not go from the San Francisco Bay chart. Didn't put in tides, or currents, or anything like that, did he? He put in tides or current?
Lydell Wall: No. It's very specific what it says at the top.
Mark Geragos: And then the next thing that we have is this Striped Bass website or web page, correct?
Lydell Wall: That's correct

[Hey Paula]

LOL

Too bad TMZ or the Smoking Gun can't wiretap all the cheaters out there, I have a feeling people like you would be hooked, LOL

Hi BB!

What separates this cheater from other cheaters is Scott predicted he'd "lose" his wife 2 weeks before she disappeared. He further predicted it would be his first holiday without her. But what truly separates Scott, the cheater, from the other cheaters, is his wife's remains washed up where Scott was on the day his wife ACTUALLY disappeared. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an innocent man to have made a statement, which later came true, and resulted in a triple coincidence.

IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

It is obvious to me that Scott was accessing fishing sites looking for fishing information...he didn't specifically look for currents and tides...with that said, fishermen do look for currents and tides info to select the best spot for their fishing purposes..


For fishing information??
Why would he need fishing information in order to take the boat out for a test run?

[Beebee]

Hi BB!

What separates this cheater from other cheaters is Scott predicted he'd "lose" his wife 2 weeks before she disappeared. He further predicted it would be his first holiday without her. But what truly separates Scott, the cheater, from the other cheaters, is his wife's remains washed up where Scott was on the day his wife ACTUALLY disappeared. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an innocent man to have made a statement, which later came true, and resulted in a triple coincidence.

IMO

Hi Paula,

The bodies being discovered by the Bay is the reason a lot of people assume Scott is guilty. At least one juror pretty much said that. Can't remember his name.

I'm of the opinion that the bodies were not in the Bay from Dec. 24 until discovery and I also think Scott's investigators have a shot at proving it with additional testing. I really do believe that not only will Scott get a new trial due to the massive errors in his first trial, but he will also be able to exonerate himself with new evidence.

Now, I know you don't believe that, but I do.... :D

[Beebee]

For fishing information??
Why would he need fishing information in order to take the boat out for a test run?

He did some fishing too. He had a license, rods, and tackle box.

So yeah, the fishing sites pretty much fit with that.

MOO

[accordn2me]

He did some fishing too. He had a license, rods, and tackle box.

So yeah, the fishing sites pretty much fit with that.

MOOYep. He had unopened lures...a rod that wasn't put together....and a fish finder! Don't forget about the fish finder. The fish finder was one of the most important pieces of equipment Scott had that day.

[attorneywan2be]

For fishing information??
Why would he need fishing information in order to take the boat out for a test run?

Scott didn't say the ONLY reason he went to the bay was to get the boat in the water..that was his main reason but not the only reason...!

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?
PETERSON: Little bit. I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.

[Beebee]

Yep. He had unopened lures...a rod that wasn't put together....and a fish finder! Don't forget about the fish finder. The fish finder was one of the most important pieces of equipment Scott had that day.


What do you think he was doing with the fish finder?

[attorneywan2be]

Yep. He had unopened lures...a rod that wasn't put together....and a fish finder! Don't forget about the fish finder. The fish finder was one of the most important pieces of equipment Scott had that day.

He had an ocean rod and reel on his boat..he had saltwater lures in his tackle box..Bruce Peterson sold him the boat with a fish finder..so it came with the boat..

[accordn2me]

What do you think he was doing with the fish finder?Looking for deep water, of course.

[accordn2me]

He had an ocean rod and reel on his boat..he had saltwater lures in his tackle box..Bruce Peterson sold him the boat with a fish finder..so it came with the boat..It's probably the reason he bought that very boat....from someone with the same last name.

Which rod wasn't connected?

[accordn2me]

Scott didn't say the ONLY reason he went to the bay was to get the boat in the water..that was his main reason but not the only reason...!

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?
PETERSON: Little bit. I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.
Trolling? Scott trolled? OK. So where are his pole holders?

[JustMyOpinion]

He had an ocean rod and reel on his boat..he had saltwater lures in his tackle box..Bruce Peterson sold him the boat with a fish finder..so it came with the boat..

Yep, how handy. The seller had the same surname as Scott and the boat came with a fish-finder!

[JustMyOpinion]

Yep. He had unopened lures...a rod that wasn't put together....and a fish finder! Don't forget about the fish finder. The fish finder was one of the most important pieces of equipment Scott had that day.

I have always believed the same!

[attorneywan2be]

Trolling? Scott trolled? OK. So where are his pole holders?

On his boat..

[attorneywan2be]

It's probably the reason he bought that very boat....from someone with the same last name.

Which rod wasn't connected?

He could have taken it apart to clean it after fishing..as far as I know, fishermen do that after fishing in saltwater..


REEL CARE:

After fishing, especially in salt water, gently rinse or wipe off your reels and rods with fresh water. Do not use a powerful stream of water when rinsing your reels with a hose as this will ensure further damage by driving salt particles and impurities into the internal mechanisms.

When applying a soapy solution prior to rinsing off reels and rods, especially after saltwater use a gentle soap not washing up liquid. Then use a soft cloth to help remove any scales stuck on your rods, don't use anything abrasive, as these may damage the finish. To help preserve a rod's luster periodically apply and wipe off a furniture polish (such as Pledge).

Dry reels (and rods) with a chamois or terry cloth towel, or let them drip dry. Then use a light oil or WD40 or similar to apply a protective film on your reels and be careful not to spray your line. If you do be sure to wipe it off immediately.

Periodically, apply reel lube to oil ports on handle knobs, external parts (under eccentric lever, etc.). Don't over lubricate, remember the old adage "little and often", so it's better to lubricate sparsely and frequently. It's a waste of time trying to make up for a lack of regular maintenance by "over-lubricating."

Use a quality reel grease from Penn, Diawa etc for gear teeth, bearings and other internal frictional surfaces.

Store your rods and reels in a cool, dry place. But first release the drag (lever, star or knob) on your reels to take pressure off the drag springs and washers. Tip: On International and star drag reels put the clicker on after backing off the drag to prevent line from coming off the spool too easily. Don't store reels in plastic bags, doing this helps damaging the reel through condensation.

Depending upon use, reels should be periodically taken apart, cleaned and serviced. Do this at least once a season - more frequently if they are used often. Then your properly maintained kit should last a lifetime.

------------------------
ROD CARE:

Rods are simpler to maintain, after each trip wash them thoroughly with fresh water (and a mild soap if desired) to remove salt, scales and impurities. When dry carefully check your rod guides for any nicks or cuts that could damage or fray your line. An effective method for checking guide damage is to run a pair of women's stockings through them. Any significant imperfections will snag the nylon. Don't store your rods by leaning them against a wall as this may cause the bend and warp them. Storing them vertically or horizontally in a cool, dry location is best.

Cork and foam handles can be cleaned and brightened-up easily. To restore a cork handle to it's original light color, sand with fine or extra fine grade sandpaper. Using heavier paper will only rough the finish and remove the cork. Foam handles can be restored by using a medium or coarse grade sandpaper.

Good rod care can be as simple as just visually checking the rod. Rods have no moving or working parts, other than the hood on the reel seat, and the roller guides on offshore rods. Problems start when the reels are left on the rod, especially after being used in salt water. Ideally, rods should be washed after each fishing trip. This is done by using a light spray from the garden hose and a "shot" of WD-40 on your guides and reel seat. This will break down the salt deposits. For a very dirty rod, scrub with a light brush the areas around the guides, guide feet and the reel seat. To keep the reel seat working, screw the movable hood from one end to the other, and scrub the threads.

Look after your gear and it will look after you...

http://www.paauk.com/Tackle%20Care.php

[accordn2me]

On his boat..
WHERE on his boat? Still looking at the pics....no pole holders that I can see.

[attorneywan2be]

Yep, how handy. The seller had the same surname as Scott and the boat came with a fish-finder!

Really?! how about the medical examiner..his name was "Brian Peterson"..!! the point is that "Peterson" is a very common name...and what evidence do you have that Scott was searching for a seller that had the same last name?

[JustMyOpinion]

Really?! how about the medical examiner..his name was "Brian Peterson"..!! the point is that "Peterson" is a very common name...and what evidence do you have that Scott was searching for a seller that had the same last name?

I don't think he was searching for that, it was an unexpected bonus, IMO.

[Beebee]

WHERE on his boat? Still looking at the pics....no pole holders that I can see.

On that dinky boat you can just hold the rod and drift. I see people do it out my window all the time.

Are you familiar with the area around Brooks Island?

Amazing they couldn't find the body, don't you think?

[accordn2me]

He could have taken it apart to clean it after fishing..as far as I know, fishermen do that after fishing in saltwater..


<unnecessary information snipped>Oh. Of course. Scott took that one rod apart. Left it lying in salt water in the boat along with the pliers with Laci's hair.....didn't clean and wash the saltwater off the boat, motor & trailer, or anything else.....oh, and be sure you chalk taking this one rod apart to the list of useless things Scott did before he set about finding his pregnant wife whom he hadn't been able to get in touch with all day.
:no:

[attorneywan2be]

WHERE on his boat? Still looking at the pics....no pole holders that I can see.


Rick Distaso: And what did you sell him with the boat? What came with it?
Bruce Peterson: You can see the fish finder on the side of the boat, two rod holders, two life jackets.

---------------------

Darren Ruskamp: No. I believe it was the fishing pole holders that were actually on the boat.
Mark Geragos: It says a PVC plastic apparatus. Was that actually in the boat?
Darren Ruskamp: I believe there's two of them on the boat.

[accordn2me]

Really?! how about the medical examiner..his name was "Brian Peterson"..!! the point is that "Peterson" is a very common name...and what evidence do you have that Scott was searching for a seller that had the same last name?
It was just Scott's luck, don't you see? Like finding a boat with a fish finder so he could tell exactly how deep the water was where he was dumping his murdered, pregnant wife's body.

[Beebee]

It was just Scott's luck, don't you see? Like finding a boat with a fish finder so he could tell exactly how deep the water was where he was dumping his murdered, pregnant wife's body.


How is Bruce Peterson's name beneficial to Scott? :confused:

[attorneywan2be]

How is Bruce Peterson's name beneficial to Scott? :confused:


Exactly!! that's what I would like to know too...

[accordn2me]

On that dinky boat you can just hold the rod and drift. I see people do it out my window all the time.

Are you familiar with the area around Brooks Island?

Amazing they couldn't find the body, don't you think?Trolling is not drifting. It would be hard to operate the motor and troll at the same time. It could be done in the dinky boat....but it wouldn't be relaxing and fun.

Attorneywan2be....thank you for providing the pole holders! :seeya: That makes Scott's claim of trolling more plausible....I'm guessing he did have some rods with reels that were connected and with test line heavy enough for trolling?

No, I'm not familiar with the area around Brooks Island. Or the area between the marina and Brooks Island. I understand there are some deep shipping channels that run through there. Is that true?

It would have been amazing had they found the body as it was weighted down, yet moving around along the bottom, IMO.

[Miss Bootsie]

Looking for deep water, of course.

Acc, did you know duck-hunting waders were also found in the boat?

[accordn2me]

How is Bruce Peterson's name beneficial to Scott? :confused:If he were stopped with an unregistered boat...Scott was an accomplished enough liar to claim it was his dad, uncle, brother, etc.

I don't place as much weight on the same last name as I do the all important fish finder.

The fish finder was critical. It let Scott know exactly when he'd reached the shipping channel. Therefore, he didn't need to bring copies of the "research" he'd done. He didn't even need to study the computer screen for more than a few seconds once he saw the ad for a boat with a fish finder...or got the idea to buy a boat with a fish finder! He just needed to know the general vicinity of the channels...the fish finder did the rest.

[accordn2me]

Acc, did you know duck-hunting waders were also found in the boat?
No! Chest-high? Hip waders? Do you have a theory about those?

I'll tell you, that vegetation found in the hair that was in the pliers....that's driving me nuts. No mention, that I can find about it...:confused:


Now...the waders....the missing life jacket....makes that dumb defense experiment pretty useless wouldn't you say.

[Miss Bootsie]

Amazing they couldn't find the body, don't you think?

Not really. It is very understandable why they were unable find the body. imo


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Want to switch our focus now. Laci Peterson case. Investigators today went back to San Francisco Bay looking for clues in that case. How is the search today?
Our Rusty Dornin is live in Richmond, California, watching this story from the very beginning, live again with us tonight.

Rusty, good evening there.

RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Bill.

Well, divers spent about seven hours in the water today before pulling up their air hoses and going back to the docks. Now that's been about the average that they're spending out there.

We didn't see from shore them bring anything aboard the boats today. Yesterday we saw them pull what looked like some kind of black cloth. We understand it was a sail. They do have to bring up anything they find, just so that the divers aren't pulling those things out again. Got to get rid of those things in the search area.

But from what we understand, as you can see, it's a little bit windy behind me here, and one of the sonar experts we talked to said, you know, every day has been the same. He goes out in the morning, it's beautiful, it's very glassy, they're getting great images off the bottom. Then by the afternoon, and when the waves are two or three feet high, that really smears the images and they're not able to get a good computer image. They end up having to come back to the dock and then try again the next day.

Now they have seen -- what they're looking for, really, is anything that looks like it does not belong in the bay, anything odd shaped. Says he's seen -- you know, they saw a couple of things they sent down divers for, they turned out to be tree stumps, things like concrete blocks that were not of something they were looking for.

So -- Gene Ralston (ph) out of Idaho says that the same problem has come up every day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Early in the morning, we can make some pretty good, pretty decent images, when the water's calm, and we don't have a lot of velocity. But when the waves get two to three feet high, sends pretty good rollers, that starts messing up our images and smearing them pretty badly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DORNIN: Says it's difficult, because often they go to places where they know that there's been a drowning or an accident, and they know perhaps the point of entry.

In this case, they have absolutely no idea what happened in this case. They really don't know where to look. They're depending right now on a U.S. GSI scientist who's told them that because the body washed up here on the beach where I'm standing, they believe that because the winds came from the southwest, that's the area that they decided to go backwards and begin searching from.

So that's about all they're going on. They have absolutely no idea if they're searching in the right place. But from what we understand, they will be continuing to search through Friday.

HEMMER: Rusty, thanks.

DORNIN: Bill.

HEMMER: Rusty Dornin, Richmond, California, in the Bay there.

Today the fifth straight day again of searching. Since Friday of last week scuba divers and boats equipped with sonar have searched the waters looking for possible evidence. What then are the conditions for investigators underneath the waters there?

Our guest might be able to shed some light here. Sergeant Rene LePrevotte, a 33 year veteran of the San Francisco underwater unit. He's not working on the Peterson case (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but he is working, has worked in the bay for about 33 years. And we talked earlier with Rusty about the silt and the conditions and what investigators are trying to do right now with this sonar. Sergeant LePrevotte, knows this all too well he has been on the force out there in San Francisco, going through these waters. In a moment we'll bring him up there live in San Francisco.

Sergeant, good evening to you. Thirty-three years, what are the dangers and the conditions below the way? DAVID THIS IS FOR YOU.

SGT. RENE LEPREVOTTE, SFPD UNDERWATER, RECOVERY UNIT: Yes. I hear you.

HEMMER: Yes, go ahead sir, we're live on the air tonight. Tell us about the conditions that you come across beneath the water?

LEPREVOTTE: Well, there's no visibility at all. It's pretty much all searches are done by grope and feel. You put out a couple of weights, spring a line between them. You hold onto a line with one hand and grope through the mud with the other hand.

HEMMER: What about the sonar that's being used. How helpful that is that?

LEPREVOTTE: San Francisco Police doesn't have side-scan son sonar. However, it's a very advanced piece of equipment. And it shortens the amount of time that you're going to be sifting through mud because it can see through the mud.

HEMMER: I apologize for the interruption. How deep is that water, sir?

LEPREVOTTE: Well, it depends where you go. The shipping channel's around 40 feet. There's places that's been filled in that's only four or five feet deep.

HEMMER: Do you know in the area they're searching, how deep is that area?

LEPREVOTTE: Well, I'm not -- I have no specific knowledge of exactly where they're searching today it. But ranges from four feet to 40 feet.

HEMMER: Tell us about the silt and the difficulties that presents?

LEPREVOTTE: Well, on a good day, you'll have maybe two feet of visibility, if there's a lot of bright sunlight. Once a diver gets down onto the bottom. A diver stirs up the silt, and there's no visibility whatsoever. A good analogy would be if you throw some piece of evidence out into the lawn at Candlestick Park and blindfold a searcher and put them on their hands and knees out there looking for it. That's what it's like being on the bay.

HEMMER: Wow, day five, does it surprise you as gone five days and could go much longer?

LEPREVOTTE: We spent five days looking for cars in the bay.

HEMMER: Wow. And this is much more important than a car.

Sergeant Rene LePrevotte, live in San Francisco.

Thank you, sir, for talking with us tonight. Appreciate it. Good luck to you.

LEPREVOTTE: Your welcome.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com


DORNIN: Well, the side scanning sonar is very accurate. It can even pick up maybe the something size of something of a two-pound coffee can and of course, it can see through the murkiness and the muddiness, but it depends on the bottom. The bay is very smooth so they tend to get a good signal back. But the problem is, if it's weights or perhaps her remains that have been covered by mud, from turbulence, from boating, if it's perhaps near the shipping lanes, the problem is if it's covered with mud, the sonar cannot pick up what's underneath that mud and silt, which is one of the reasons the divers have to feel with their hands in the silt. So it's a very difficult, painstaking job and it's going to be very difficult to find something down there.

[JustMyOpinion]

On that dinky boat you can just hold the rod and drift. I see people do it out my window all the time.

Are you familiar with the area around Brooks Island?

Amazing they couldn't find the body, don't you think?

I think they did locate it.
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Media/articles/secret.htm
Sonar experts located body in Bay in March

By William Brand, STAFF WRITER
Oakland Tribune

Article Last Updated: Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 7:28:36 PM PST

POINT ISABEL -- Weeks before the remains of Modesto's Laci Peterson and her unborn son Connor washed up on the Richmond shoreline, investigators say they had found her watery grave through side-scan sonar that penetrated the inky darkness inside a Chevron shipping channel.

But before they could retrieve the bodies, they believe a heavily laden tanker passed over or near the burial spot, churning up the channel's bottom and dislodging the sunken corpses.

The wind, choppy waves and high incoming tides influenced by the full moon -- as well as gases from the deteriorating remains -- combined to eventually bring the bodies to shore.

Sources said the original grave site was miles away from where the only suspect in the case, Laci's husband Scott Peterson, told police he had gone fishing Christmas Eve. That was the day Laci, eight months pregnant, was reported missing, triggering a search that received national attention.

Modesto Police Chief Roy Wasden confirmed investigators believe they found the body as early as mid-March, but could not retrieve it. "The waves came up and we couldn't go down. I can't tell you the frustration we felt," Wasden said.

No one who participated in the search said a word to reporters waiting on shore the day the sonar detected Laci's body. "We thought if the suspect knew we had found her, he might flee," one law enforcement source said.

But with Scott Peterson now in jail on charges of killing Laci and Connor, those close to the investigation confirmed the detection of Laci's body weeks before it washed ashore April 14.

Sources say the remains, possibly wrapped in some sort of plastic and held down by heavy material, were found by side-scan sonar deep in a shipping channel of San Francisco Bay, about 4 miles off Brooks Island.

That's the spot of land just south of the Richmond shoreline where Peterson, 30, told police he spent the morning of Christmas Eve fishing for sturgeon.

The Bay around the island is extremely shallow -- a marine chart shows low-tide depths of less than 3 feet -- not the kind of place to find sturgeon or dump a body.

The only deep water in the vicinity is to the west, in a shipping channel that is regularly dredged to allow ocean-going vessels into port.

Strollers found Laci's unborn baby, Connor, in a tidal pond about 250 yards east of the last house in Richmond's Marina Bay on the afternoon of April 13.

Laci's partial remains -- her torso and a leg -- were discovered the next day, less than a mile across the Richmond inner harbor, lodged in concrete rip rap at Point Isabel, the popular East Bay Regional Park District dog-walking park.

A state lab in Richmond identified Laci and Connor by DNA analysis April 18.

"When those remains washed up, it confirmed everybody's suspicions," one source said. "We know where she was put, and it wasn't in that shallow area around Brooks Island," the source said .

"But when we got back out there, she was gone."

Shipping channel theory

A veteran San Francisco Bar Pilot captain, not connected to the case, said last week that the shipping channel theory sounds plausible.

Although most people may not realize it, much of the deep water in the Bay is in the shipping channels, which are dredged, said Capt. Blake Coney -- one of more than 60 expert pilots who guide ships in and out of the Bay by navigating treacherous, shifting shoals of sand.

Large tankers carrying heavy crude oil headed for the big Chevron Refinery in Richmond often have barely 2 feet of water under their keels at low tide, Coney said. The channel is dredged to about 43 feet deep, but those heavily laden tankers draw nearly that much water, he said.

A ship's screws could churn things up, Coney said.

"This sounds like a movie plot, and it's creepy," he said.

Coney noted that marine charts show low-tide soundings throughout the Bay. They mostly indicate depths of less than 10 feet everywhere except in the dredged channels.

Of course, the water is deeper when the tide flows into the Bay and the low-tide numbers are "mean numbers" -- the depth midway between the lowest recorded low tide and the highest low tide.

The nearest deep water from Brooks Island or from the Berkeley Marina, where Peterson said he launched his small boat, is Southampton Shoal Channel. It's the route that tankers going to Chevron take.

Outbound tankers take a wider route, more than a mile further west.

Coney added that even if Laci's killer intended to dump her in the shipping channel, then it would be easy to make a mistake.

"The sides are toed in (sloping)," he said. "But it would be very easy to miss the deepest part of the channel, get (the body) in 6 feet rather than 30 feet of water."

That's why ships entering and leaving the Bay must employ a San Francisco Bar Pilot, he said. Smiling, he recalled how the U.S. Navy supercarrier USS. Enterprise once ran aground off the Alameda Naval Air Station because its captain ignored advice from a bar pilot.

Meanwhile, Modesto Police Chief Wasden said investigators intend to follow up leads to the rest of the remains.

At a news conference last week, when he announced results of the DNA tests and the arrest of Scott Peterson near San Diego, Wasden credited volunteers, divers, search-and-rescue experts, and sonar experts who painstakingly probed the bottom of the Bay from the Berkeley Marina north to Brooks Island, then west to the shipping channel.

Among others, he mentioned Gene Ralston, a Boise, Idaho, side-scan sonar expert who helped Modesto detectives search the bottom of the Bay.

Ralston would not comment last week about the initial discovery of Laci's body.

But Ralston, who has donated his services, said he's hopeful a new search would yield the rest of the young woman's remains. He noted his sonar is very sophisticated and he has helped find submerged bodies many times.

Another member of his firm has been participating in a search of lakes and reservoirs in Texas, looking for parts of the space shuttle Columbia.

"This sonar is the best way to see stuff underwater," Ralston said. "In San Francisco Bay, because of all the silt, you've got zero visibility on the bottom."At the range we're looking at, I've seen things as small as a half-gallon can, a small coffee can. The bottom varies; there are some rocky areas and lots of smooth, mud bottom. Some places the floor is reticulated -- like the surface of the moon -- there are little pockmarks."

Ralston said he's prepared to help again. "We're optimistic we'll be able to find the rest," he said. "I only hope we can get there before the killer hires someone to go out. You know, money talks."
Investigators would not comment.
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Media/articles/secret.htm

[ekg]

Has Kim McGregor been talked about in this thread?

or anywhere on the website?

I thought this might be the thread for her to be discussed... so I figured I'd ask to make sure I'm not bringing up old stuff in the same thread..

I'd like more info on her if anyone has any... I know of her is from the petersonblog.com lady who blogged during the trial and took pics and stuff..

here's what she writes.....

Kim McGregor, Scott Peterson's neighbor, who lived at 1519 Encina (right around the corner from the 523 Covena House,) is an interesting character in the Peterson Case.

* McGregor knew Laci through the Encina Project.
* McGregor had a very flimsy alibi for the December 24th.
* McGregor went over to the Peterson house on the night of December 24th and helped with the search and brought coffee over for everyone.
* McGregor spent a lot of time at the search center and the Red Lion volunteer center.
* McGregor was given keys to the Peterson home so that she could walk Scott's dog, McKenzie.
* Rumors abound that McGregor was a big Scott Peterson supporter, and had a crush on Scott.

The coup des gras came on or about the night of January 18, 2003. On January 16th, the National Enquirer called Doug Ridenour, the Modesto PD public information officer, with a story their paper was going to break about Peterson having an affair with a Fresno woman. Ridenour called Brocchini and Grogan with the information. The police had to tell the Rocha family before they read it in the Enquirer. Brocchini told the Rocha family about the affair, and a bogus recently purchased life insurance policy, and the news spread like wildfire.

After that story broke, Kim McGregor broke into Peterson's 523 Covena residence using a coffee mug to break a pane of one of the French Doors, even though she had keys to the home. While inside, McGregor fixed herself a Jack Daniels and Coke, opened two Christmas presents, and stole some clothing, Laci's social security card, and a camcorder with home videos Scott and Laci had filmed. This video was played in court last week. There also exists an unconfirmed rumor that Kim rifled through the drawers, tried on some of Laci's clothing, including Laci's wedding dress.

The timing of the break-in is suspect, because it was so close to the announcement of Peterson's affair with Amber Frey. Did Kim McGregor break in because she was heartbroken by the news of the affair?

When police questioned McGregor about the break-in, McGregor was very evasive. McGregor lied about items she took from the home, and then when the police pressed her, she would "fess up." The police found a lot of the stolen Peterson clothing items in a dumpster in an alley behind 601 Bowen. McGregor didn't evoke any more information until the folks at MOAB (Meal on a Bun) called with information regarding the Laci Peterson disappearance - the camcorder Kim stole from the house.

The really interesting twist is that when Kim took a lie-detector test … and the results were INCONCLUSIVE!

and then there was this

http://www.petersonblog.com/McGregor_home/index.html

which allegedly is a "Photo essay of where Laci walked McKenzie by the McGregor home"


whats interesting is McGregor lived by the Gallo vineyards..... isn't that where one of the dogs trailed Laci to?

anyway, I"m sorry if this has been discussed already in this thread....if it has can ya can gimme an idea of about what page...LOL.. you'll save me some time reading :read: :D

[attorneywan2be]

At least 2 witnesses testified that Laci used to wear her stretch black pants on many occasions..

Mark Geragos: I'm going to page 380, if it's with permission of the Court. I'll ask the interpreter, anything that could refresh your memory as to what she was wearing? And your answer was, the only thing that in my mind was that she almost always used to wear a black pair of pants and a white blouse.
Margarita Nava: Yes, I do remember.

Preliminary hearings

Mark Geragos: Right. You had a -- my investigator -- or
actually, I take that back. One of the police
investigators, Detective Brocchini, interviewed you, didn't
he? Is that right?
Margarita Nava:Yes.
Mark Geragos:And you told him that she was wearing a -- that you
remembered a white long-sleeved shirt; is that correct?
Margarita Nava:Yes.
Mark Geragos: And she most probably also was wearing black
stretch-type maternity pants?
Margarita Nava:Yes.

Mark Geragos: Did you say that Laci always wore the same clothes to the workout, which were a white stretchy top, black stretch pants, and a red zip-up fleece vest?
Debra Wolski: Yes.

And

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you also described the clothing that she wore as black stretch pants, white shirt, long sleeves, white tennis shoes and a red fleece vest, correct?
Debra Wolski: In the winter, yes. In the cold months.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you described what she was wearing on December 4th, do you remember that?
Debra Wolski: It would have been the same. The white shirt, the black stretch pants, the red fleece vest.

Several MPD witnesses testified that they were specifically looking for Laci's black pants when they searched the home on Dec 26th and Dec 27th...they only found 2 pairs of black pants in a white bag that looked new and unused...where were Laci's black pants that she almost wore all the time?

Mark Geragos: Thanks. We left off, Detective, there were these 60 items that had been collected that -- what is that, both the 26th and the 27th?
Rudy Skultety: That's correct.

And

Mark Geragos: Then you also had 37 A, which was described as a Motherhood brand black pants, size medium, correct?
Rudy Skultety: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Where were those collected from?
Rudy Skultety: I believe A and B were taken out of the nursery.
Mark Geragos: Okay. IN Due Time brand black women's pants, size medium, also taken out of the nursery?
Rudy Skultety: Yes. 37 A and B. That white bag you discussed earlier in the nursery.
Mark Geragos: Okay. When you say the white bag, the one that was in the nursery itself, near the crib?
Rudy Skultety: That was near the door.
Mark Geragos: Near the door. Okay. And both of those pairs of pants were seized as evidence to be tested; isn't that correct?
Rudy Skultety: It was seized pursuant to -- it was one of the items that were listed that we were looking for.


Mark Geragos: Now, yesterday when we were talking about that bag, that's the white bag with the black pants; is that correct?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Now, the, you had noted in your report, I think, that you found no forensic evidence in that room; is that right?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Now, the bag itself with the black pants that you were asked about yesterday, are these items right there, are those the black pants that you are talking about?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, they appear to be.
Mark Geragos: And do you have a, did you write a report in connection with those black pants?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: What page is that?
Dodge Hendee: That would be Page 1 of 8, or Bates number 2211.
Mark Geragos: And how did you describe those pants?
Dodge Hendee: Two pairs of black maternity stretch pants that appeared to be clean and possibly unused.
Mark Geragos: What did you mean by possibly unused?
Dodge Hendee: To me they didn't look like they had been worn.
Mark Geragos: They looked new?
Dodge Hendee: Yeah.
Mark Geragos: Okay. What size were they?
Dodge Hendee: I don't know, sir.
Mark Geragos: Are they mediums, do you know?
Dodge Hendee: I don't know.
Mark Geragos: They, to you, when looking at them, did it look like somebody had purchased them and they were placed in that bag? I mean did they, you had made the notation, based upon looking at them, that they looked unused, right?
Dodge Hendee: Right.
Mark Geragos: What I'm trying get at is, when you said possibly never been worn did, it look like they were brand new maternity pants?
Dodge Hendee: That was my opinion, yeah.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Didn't look like they were maternity pants that had been worn on the 24th or the 23rd and then stuffed back into the bag, did they?
Dodge Hendee: That's correct.


Craig Grogan: Yes. I believe there was at least two pairs of black pants that were recovered, and that was something that we were looking for because it was part of the description for Laci Peterson on the morning of December 24th.
Birgit Fladager: What else?
Craig Grogan: We were looking for a white shirt, but we didn't find one in the first search warrant, which would have matched her description on December 24th. We were also looking for white tennis shoes. We did find some white shoes, but they were slip on. They looked like tennis shoes from the front, but they slip on from the back. They don't have a standard back that a tennis shoe would have on them. As far as clothing, that's what I recall we recovered there.
Birgit Fladager: Why is it that you were looking for black pants and a white shirt, and white tennis shoes?
Craig Grogan: Because that was what the defendant said she was last seen wearing on December 24th when he left the home.

Continued..

[attorneywan2be]

Kim McGregor broke into Laci's house on January 19th, she stole some clothes and dumped them in garbage cans..amazingly!! one of the items that was recovered was a pair of stretch black pants..we know that the police were looking for those pants on Dec 26th and Dec 27th, however, they didn't find them in the house...the question is: from where did Kim get those pants? were they Laci's? or were those pants dumped there for a purpose?

Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically contained in that, the items that were stolen from the house were women's thong underwear, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yeah. I think these are the, these are the items that were recovered in the dumpster or in someone's trash can that Kim McGregor had taken them to.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Initially, as I understand it, her first story was that she had gotten to the house to walk the dog and then all of a sudden discovered this break-in, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yeah. Based on the last thing I read, it appears to be the case.
Mark Geragos: She then changed her story the second time around, correct? And admitted to taking some clothes, getting drunk and taking some clothes, right?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And directed the police to where the clothes were, right?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And one of the items that was recovered was women's stretch pants, black, and with the make of GAP; is that right?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: And women's underwear, and then men's jackets, things like that?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Fleece pullovers, sweat shirts, assorted, at least, what, thirteen, or twelve different items of clothing?
Craig Grogan: Yes.


According to Hendee's testimony, they found another pair of black stretch pants on February 18th "second search of the house"...it is difficult to believe that the police missed 2 pair of black stretch pants when they searched the house in Dec ..they were specifically looking for them...

Mark Geragos: And were you present with Amy Rocha on the 18th, in the house?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, I was.
Mark Geragos: Amy Rocha identified that as the blouse that she saw Laci wearing on the 23rd?
Dodge Hendee: Well, of all the blouses we found, that was the one she thought would be the, most likely the one that she was wearing the last time she saw her.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And that's why you collected it, correct?
Dodge Hendee: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And you also collected some shorts from the left-side middle dresser drawer; is that correct?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: These shorts were black cut-off sweat shorts?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And they had what appeared to be grayish colored cat hairs on them?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the, and you sampled the hairs off of the shorts?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: You took them? Did you also find a pair of black women's stretch pants on that day?
Dodge Hendee: I believe so.
Mark Geragos: And that was collected from where?
Dodge Hendee: I don't know. Can you refer me to what you're looking at?
Mark Geragos: I'm looking at where it says left-side middle dresser drawer.
Dodge Hendee: Yes. You,
Mark Geragos: And,
Dodge Hendee: It was collected from the left-side middle dresser drawer, a pair of black women's stretch pants.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And what was item number 218-15?
Dodge Hendee: That's the stretch pants. The black women's stretch pants.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Where, did you find those with this item, People's 10, same drawer?
Dodge Hendee: I believe that was on the top drawer above it. The stretch pants, let me see where we're talking about here. 215. That came from the left-side middle dresser drawer.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, these are different black maternity stretch pants than the two pairs that were in the white bag in the nursery on the 26th of December, correct?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. So clearly there were, at a minimum, three pairs of black maternity stretch pants in that house, correct?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Did you observe other black maternity stretch pants in that house that weren't collected?
Dodge Hendee: No.
Mark Geragos: Did you,
Dodge Hendee: Not to my knowledge.

According to most of the witnesses that reported seeing Laci walking McKenzie on Dec 24th, Laci was wearing black pants, one of the witnesses stated that she was wearing a red top, remember, Wolski testified that Laci almost always wore black pants, white shirt, and a red vest..I think Laci left the house wearing her black pants, that would explain why the police didn't find them the first time around..they found them the second time they searched the house on Feb 18th..what happened between December and February? Kim broke into the house on January 19th...that's what happened..!


Birgit Fladager: The various people who report seeing Laci Peterson, the majority of them and the folks we're talking about here specifically, put her in black pants?
Mark Geragos: Be an objection. It's compound.
Judge Delucchi: It's leading.
Mark Geragos: It's leading.
Judge Delucchi: What color description did the majority of the informants give you as far as what she was wearing?
Craig Grogan: I would say the majority match with black pants or white shirts, with the description that was released to the media

Mark Geragos: One of those tips was from a gentleman named Tommy, Tom Harshman. H-a-r-s-h-m-a-n. This would be, I have got a Bates numbered stamp. I don't think you do.
Ron Cloward: 5:00 p.m. Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. That was a gentleman who had phoned in and reported an observation about a van six days prior to that, correct?

And

Mark Geragos: Woman had black hair, red top, black pants?
Ron Cloward: Correct

[ekg]

Kim McGregor broke into Laci's house on January 19th, she stole some clothes and dumped them in garbage cans..amazingly!! one of the items that was recovered was a pair of stretch black pants..we know that the police were looking for those pants on Dec 26th and Dec 27th, however, they didn't find them in the house...the question is: from where did Kim get those pants? were they Laci's? or were those pants dumped there for a purpose?




According to Hendee's testimony, they found another pair of black stretch pants on February 18th "second search of the house"...it is difficult to believe that the police missed 2 pair of black stretch pants when they searched the house in Dec ..they were specifically looking for them...



According to most of the witnesses that reported seeing Laci walking McKenzie on Dec 24th, Laci was wearing black pants, one of the witnesses stated that she was wearing a red top, remember, Wolski testified that Laci almost always wore black pants, white shirt, and a red vest..I think Laci left the house wearing her black pants, that would explain why the police didn't find them the first time around..they found them the second time they searched the house on Feb 18th..what happened between December and February? Kim broke into the house on January 19th...that's what happened..!






And

wow.... THANK YOU.....I didn't realize the black pants turned up after she broke in...:eek:

I was always interested in KM b/c of the break in and the rumor of her wearing Laci's wedding dress... and then hearing that she inserted herself into the whole thing the night Laci went missing and her having a crush on SP...it all just struck me as very odd.

the night she broke in the house.... didn't 3 other women show up there and MPD didn't feel the need to investigate who they were?

the whole KM thing is weird.... and her living by the Gallo vineyards and all is just weirder....

[attorneywan2be]

wow.... THANK YOU.....I didn't realize the black pants turned up after she broke in...:eek:

I was always interested in KM b/c of the break in and the rumor of her wearing Laci's wedding dress... and then hearing that she inserted herself into the whole thing the night Laci went missing and her having a crush on SP...it all just struck me as very odd.

the night she broke in the house.... didn't 3 other women show up there and MPD didn't feel the need to investigate who they were?

the whole KM thing is weird.... and her living by the Gallo vineyards and all is just weirder....


I mean the police were looking for those pants on Dec 26th and the 27th..they weren't able to find them..Kim Mcgregor broke into the house in January and boom !! the police found the black pants in February...something is not right about this..I think there is a possibility McGregor is connected to the burglars...!

[enlightenme]

I mean the police were looking for those pants on Dec 26th and the 27th..they weren't able to find them..Kim Mcgregor broke into the house in January and boom !! the police found the black pants in February...something is not right about this..I think there is a possibility McGregor is connected to the burglars...!

You can have all the feelings you want but what you would need is some solid proof.

Why would McGregor break into Scott and Laci's house to LEAVE 2 pairs of black pants? Was one of them supposed to be the one's she was kidnapped in? Why? Just does not make sense.

IMO

[Otter]

You can have all the feelings you want but what you would need is some solid proof.

Why would McGregor break into Scott and Laci's house to LEAVE 2 pairs of black pants? Was one of them supposed to be the one's she was kidnapped in? Why? Just does not make sense.

IMO

Hi EM!

Solid proof? GMAB, what more do we have to list? You've pointed out the ludicrisy of this "evidence". Its hard to grasp at straws. Maybe we "cut [them] some slack". :biggrin:

[attorneywan2be]

You can have all the feelings you want but what you would need is some solid proof.

Why would McGregor break into Scott and Laci's house to LEAVE 2 pairs of black pants? Was one of them supposed to be the one's she was kidnapped in? Why? Just does not make sense.

IMO


Do you have an explanation as to why the police would miss 2 pairs of black pants when they searched on Dec 26h and 27? they testified that they were specifically looking for them...

[enlightenme]

Do you have an explanation as to why the police would miss 2 pairs of black pants when they searched on Dec 26h and 27? they testified that they were specifically looking for them...

Er, um, because they were in a bag in the nursery? Because they just missed them? Because they weren't there and Scott put them there? Could be MANY reasons but not proven because Kim McGregor PUT them there.

That seems a BIG stretch to me.

Why TWO pairs? What was her purpose? Did forsenics test these 2 pairs of black pants?

Do you REALLY think this is exonerating evidence?

JMO

[attorneywan2be]

Er, um, because they were in a bag in the nursery? Because they just missed them? Because they weren't there and Scott put them there? Could be MANY reasons but not proven because Kim McGregor PUT them there.

That seems a BIG stretch to me.

Why TWO pairs? What was her purpose? Did forsenics test these 2 pairs of black pants?

Do you REALLY think this is exonerating evidence?

JMO

There was a testimony that they found 2 unused pairs of black pants in a bag when they searched in December...however, they didn't find the ones that Laci used to always wear...they weren't there and and Scott put them there??? what for?

Where did I say that this is exonerating evidence?..IMO, the pants should have been tested and investigated...particularly the ones that Kim Mcgregor dumped on January 19th...

[Beebee]

You can have all the feelings you want but what you would need is some solid proof.

Why would McGregor break into Scott and Laci's house to LEAVE 2 pairs of black pants? Was one of them supposed to be the one's she was kidnapped in? Why? Just does not make sense.

IMO

Well why do you think McGregor broke in?

If your answer involves her being nuts, then "does not make sense" takes on a whole new meaning doesn't it?

I mean the woman rolled around on the bed in Laci's wedding dress.

[Beebee]

No EnL - it is not exonerating evidence. He murdered his wife and baby, the placement, color, style, etc., of pants will not have any bearing on an appeal. Enjoy your day!!!:seeya:


He won't need that on his appeal. He has multiple, multiple issues.

It only takes ONE issue.

Scott's appellate team has a BIG FAT PETRI DISH just FULL of issues.

Bring on Peterson part two :beer:

[JustMyOpinion]

He won't need that on his appeal. He has multiple, multiple issues.

It only takes ONE issue.

Scott's appellate team has a BIG FAT PETRI DISH just FULL of issues.

Bring on Peterson part two :beer:

A petri dish is empty. It was a long trial ( with lengthy voir dire, several pre-trial motions & evidentiary hearings). There are several potential isses ( as there would be in any capital case...IMO)

[JustMyOpinion]

Well why do you think McGregor broke in?

If your answer involves her being nuts, then "does not make sense" takes on a whole new meaning doesn't it?

I mean the woman rolled around on the bed in Laci's wedding dress.

It's been established the McGregor had a known history of alcohol abuse.
Since McGregor wasn't called to testify by either side, I don't know why she broke in, or why she took specific items. ( & disposed of the video camera) There was a photograph published of her standing next to Scott's sister Susan, maybe she became infatuated with Scott, felt close to his family.. and "burglarized" the house/took specific items because she was asked to do so? Why do you think Scott chose not to press charges against her?

[thinkaboutit]

It's been established the McGregor had a known history of alcohol abuse.
Since McGregor wasn't called to testify by either side, I don't know why she broke in, or why she took specific items. ( & disposed of the video camera) There was a photograph published of her standing next to Scott's sister Susan, maybe she became infatuated with Scott, felt close to his family.. and "burglarized" the house/took specific items because she was asked to do so? Why do you think Scott chose not to press charges against her?

So I assume you are implying that Scott's family asked her to break in and take things....even though it was Sharon Rocha that recommended KM for the job of walking the dog? Now that's a thought - maybe SR asked KM to break in and take some things!!!

[JustMyOpinion]

So I assume you are implying that Scott's family asked her to break in and take things....even though it was Sharon Rocha that recommended KM for the job of walking the dog? Now that's a thought - maybe SR asked KM to break in and take some things!!!

I don't think Scott's family asked her to steal things, but Scott may have, IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

I don't think Scott's family asked her to steal things, but Scott may have, IMO.

And then she got caught - turned informant on him - but didn't tell the police that he had asked her to do it?

[attorneywan2be]

I don't think Scott's family asked her to steal things, but Scott may have, IMO.


Why would Scott ask her to steal things from his own house..he had full access to his house...!!!

[JustMyOpinion]

Why would Scott ask her to steal things from his own house..he had full access to his house...!!!

Don't know why he might want certain things gone( maybe he thought another warrant would be executed, which it was)I just thought some the items she allegedly took were interesting.(Scott probably knew he was under survelliance, and wouldn't have been able to easily remove/dispose of things undetected, JMO)
This is sheer speculation on my part, since Kim McGregor didn't testify for either side..but I thought it was interesting that Scott did not press charges against her.

[JustMyOpinion]

And then she got caught - turned informant on him - but didn't tell the police that he had asked her to do it?

I have no idea what McGregor told police.

[Hey Paula]

I don't think Scott's family asked her to steal things, but Scott may have, IMO.

I have always believed KM was infatuated with Scott, and "broke into the house" at Scott's behest. Scott never pressed charges against KM. Although all the links had disappeared some time ago, when the case was active there were links stating KM took a LDT, called Scott from the MPD, asked him to come in and take a poly, stating that she'd told LE "everything". Since this was never expanded upon, and it was said KM was available to testify, yet didn't, we never learned what she meant by "everything". (But I could guess)

The photos taken of KM, after Laci disappeared, were with Scott's family, not Laci's. (This sentence is in response to TAI who posted Sharon enlisted KM to walk the dog, which is true but KM favored being with Scott's family because I believe she truly was infatuated with him.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

He won't need that on his appeal. He has multiple, multiple issues.

It only takes ONE issue.

Scott's appellate team has a BIG FAT PETRI DISH just FULL of issues.

Bring on Peterson part two :beer:


I totally agree..IMO, it is a certainty that he will win his appeal...

[thinkaboutit]

I have always believed KM was infatuated with Scott, and "broke into the house" at Scott's behest. Scott never pressed charges against KM. Although all the links had disappeared some time ago, when the case was active there were links stating KM took a LDT, called Scott from the MPD, asked him to come in and take a poly, stating that she'd told LE "everything". Since this was never expanded upon, and it was said KM was available to testify, yet didn't, we never learned what she meant by "everything". (But I could guess)

The photos taken of KM, after Laci disappeared, were with Scott's family, not Laci's. (This sentence is in response to TAI who posted Sharon enlisted KM to walk the dog, which is true but KM favored being with Scott's family because I believe she truly was infatuated with him.

IMO

Hi HeyPaula! So you are basing this statement on the one picture?

[Hey Paula]

Hi HeyPaula! So you are basing this statement on the one picture?

Hi Tai!

I'm basing it on my belief KM was infatuated with Scott, so it seems natural in such a case, that KM would favor being with the family of the guy she was infatuated with, and the photo supports that contention.

IMO

[thinkaboutit]

Hi Tai!

I'm basing it on my belief KM was infatuated with Scott, so it seems natural in such a case, that KM would favor being with the family of the guy she was infatuated with, and the photo supports that contention.

IMO

Thanks for clearing that up!! :)

[cookiewench]

Why would Scott ask her to steal things from his own house..he had full access to his house...!!!

I believe that he wanted to make it look like Laci had snuck back into the house and taken some things.

[One2Snoop]

I agree - I've expressed this before as well. The nature of the things taken along with the fact that Scott didn't press charges makes me suspicious.

Also, I remember a report that when KM was at the MPD station and Scott was on the phone she said something to the effect of "Do you [Scott] want to tell them or should I?", at which point Scott said to drop it.

I remember that comment also. Did any additional info ever come out on that?

[attorneywan2be]

I believe that he wanted to make it look like Laci had snuck back into the house and taken some things.

Really?! Scott reported the burglary at around 7:45 pm on Jan 19, 2003, he told them that things were missing but someone also left a cut-off pair of black sweatpants on his bed that did not belong to him or Laci...IMO, that totally refutes the notion that he wanted to make it look like it was Laci that snuck back into the house...the next day when Brocchini found out that Kim McGregor was the one that broke into the house, Scott told Brocchini that the cut-off sweatpants could belong to McGregor, Brocchini asked McGregor about them, but he testified that he couldn't get her to admit they were hers...

Mark Geragos: And then he told you that he also found a cut-off pair of black sweatpants on his bed when he arrived home, which did not appear to belong to him or Laci, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.

[JustMyOpinion]

Really?! Scott reported the burglary at around 7:45 pm on Jan 19, 2003, he told them that things were missing but someone also left a cut-off pair of black sweatpants on his bed that did not belong to him or Laci...IMO, that totally refutes the notion that he wanted to make it look like it was Laci that snuck back into the house...the next day when Brocchini found out that Kim McGregor was the one that broke into the house, Scott told Brocchini that the cut-off sweatpants could belong to McGregor, Brocchini asked McGregor about them, but he testified that he couldn't get her to admit they were hers...

Where is the testimony from Brocchini stating he asked McGregor, but she refused to admit they were hers? TIA?

[attorneywan2be]

Where is the testimony from Brocchini stating he asked McGregor, but she refused to admit they were hers? TIA?


Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you specifically asked Kim McGregor if she left anything of her own in the house when she burglarized the house, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And what did she tell you?
Allen Brocchini: I can't remember if she said her coffee mug was there that she broke the window with, if that was hers or not. But I couldn't get her to admit the shorts were hers. From what I remember, I tried.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the shorts that we're talking about are a black, the ones that I had questioned you before the break that Scott had told you I found some black cut-off sweats and you said you were going to have Banks recover those, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Right.

[JustMyOpinion]

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you specifically asked Kim McGregor if she left anything of her own in the house when she burglarized the house, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And what did she tell you?
Allen Brocchini: I can't remember if she said her coffee mug was there that she broke the window with, if that was hers or not. But I couldn't get her to admit the shorts were hers. From what I remember, I tried.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the shorts that we're talking about are a black, the ones that I had questioned you before the break that Scott had told you I found some black cut-off sweats and you said you were going to have Banks recover those, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Right.

Thanks for posting the testimony, aw2b.

[attorneywan2be]

Here is a case where a pregnant woman was abducted because she walked in on a burglary in progress..so it does happen!!

Quote:

The family of a pregnant Augusta woman begged Friday for her safe return as the desperate search garnered national attention.

--------------

Quote:

The sheriff said Mrs. Dunstan likely stepped into a burglary at her mother's west Augusta home and was kidnapped by the intruders.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/041704/met_760275.shtml

--------------------------------------------

Quote:

But the good kid is the only person charged in the abduction and slaying of Mrs. Dunstan, 29, who police say interrupted a burglary at her mother's Kipling Drive home. The intruder cut a hole through the floor of the house and did not set off the security system.

Richmond County Sheriff Ronnie Strength said Sunday that the community should not worry because no one else is being sought in the crime.

"None whatsoever," he said. "Absolutely not."

The sheriff also said the Herend porcelain figurines, valued between $100 and $200 each, taken Thursday from the home were recovered Sunday.

Meanwhile, officials praised the work of the Augusta community for helping in the search and providing an essential tip, leading police to Mr. Burke.

That lead involved a pickup truck that had been spotted in the area where Mrs. Dunstan was abducted Thursday, Sheriff Strength said.

District Attorney Danny Craig said Mr. Burke was linked to that truck, which had been described as a blue or teal pickup with a missing tailgate that had been replaced by plywood. Mr. Craig wouldn't say where Mr. Burke was found.

"I can't say enough about the value of that and how indebted we are in the law enforcement community to those people who took the time to call in that information," he said.

After Mr. Burke was brought in for questioning late Saturday, he admitted to the crime and led police to Mrs. Dunstan's body, Mr. Craig said.


http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/041904/met_found.shtml

[TopGunner]

Here is a case where a pregnant woman was abducted because she walked in on a burglary in progress..so it does happen!!

Quote:

The family of a pregnant Augusta woman begged Friday for her safe return as the desperate search garnered national attention.

--------------

Quote:

The sheriff said Mrs. Dunstan likely stepped into a burglary at her mother's west Augusta home and was kidnapped by the intruders.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/041704/met_760275.shtml

--------------------------------------------

Quote:

But the good kid is the only person charged in the abduction and slaying of Mrs. Dunstan, 29, who police say interrupted a burglary at her mother's Kipling Drive home. The intruder cut a hole through the floor of the house and did not set off the security system.

Richmond County Sheriff Ronnie Strength said Sunday that the community should not worry because no one else is being sought in the crime.

"None whatsoever," he said. "Absolutely not."

The sheriff also said the Herend porcelain figurines, valued between $100 and $200 each, taken Thursday from the home were recovered Sunday.

Meanwhile, officials praised the work of the Augusta community for helping in the search and providing an essential tip, leading police to Mr. Burke.

That lead involved a pickup truck that had been spotted in the area where Mrs. Dunstan was abducted Thursday, Sheriff Strength said.

District Attorney Danny Craig said Mr. Burke was linked to that truck, which had been described as a blue or teal pickup with a missing tailgate that had been replaced by plywood. Mr. Craig wouldn't say where Mr. Burke was found.

"I can't say enough about the value of that and how indebted we are in the law enforcement community to those people who took the time to call in that information," he said.

After Mr. Burke was brought in for questioning late Saturday, he admitted to the crime and led police to Mrs. Dunstan's body, Mr. Craig said.


http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/041904/met_found.shtml


There are THOUSANDS more pregnant woman murdered by their husbands/boyfriends than there are pregnant wives who were murdered by burglars. Hence, I completely miss the point with this post AW2B.:rolleyes:

[Lavindar]

I have always believed KM was infatuated with Scott, and "broke into the house" at Scott's behest. Scott never pressed charges against KM. Although all the links had disappeared some time ago, when the case was active there were links stating KM took a LDT, called Scott from the MPD, asked him to come in and take a poly, stating that she'd told LE "everything". Since this was never expanded upon, and it was said KM was available to testify, yet didn't, we never learned what she meant by "everything". (But I could guess)

The photos taken of KM, after Laci disappeared, were with Scott's family, not Laci's. (This sentence is in response to TAI who posted Sharon enlisted KM to walk the dog, which is true but KM favored being with Scott's family because I believe she truly was infatuated with him.

IMO

I believe this also. There was a burglar alarm at the Peterson house. Scott was going to be gone for several days, yet did not set the alarm? How convenient for Kim, wasn't it. Also, the fact that he refused to press charges and told the police HE (Scott) would recover the missing items shows more than a victim's normal behavior. Notice how he did NOT get the video camera back, tho. I think Sharon was pressuring him for Laci's wedding dress and that is why he told police he would recover the stolen items from Kim. He NEEDED that dress imo

[Lavindar]

There are THOUSANDS more pregnant woman murdered by their husbands/boyfriends than there are pregnant wives who were murdered by burglars. Hence, I completely miss the point with this post AW2B.:rolleyes:
I agree - Charles Stuart, Michael Fletcher, and Robert Cutts come to mind without any reasearch. I'd like to see more examples than one of burglars killing pregnant women. Oh, and Jeff MacDonald of course

[ekg]

There are THOUSANDS more pregnant woman murdered by their husbands/boyfriends than there are pregnant wives who were murdered by burglars. Hence, I completely miss the point with this post AW2B.:rolleyes:


you can't mean that? I mean it's been said 'why would the small-time burglars all of a sudden jump to kidnapping and murder' .. so how can you miss the point?

I think the story is relevant b/c it shows that it does happen....

so many things in this case are called preposterous, someone kidnapping and cutting out a baby was the biggest one that I remember.... but not a month after Laci was found, or the trial I can't remember which, that is exactly what happened to another woman...

so many times ppl would say "yeah right, like there is some crazy person living there who likes to remove the heads and extremities of his victims and keep them,hahaha these SII will say anything" and lo and behold, Perry Monroe turns up in Frenso with a propensity for just that kind of thing...


the SIG like to taunt the SII/SNG with, Why can't you see all the CE that points to him... You must not like CE and don't think it carries any weight, you must be one of those kinds of ppl...

well Ok... lets take a look

you have a women who's obsessed enough with Scott to break into his house,steal his underwear, prance around in his wife clothes, leaving the house either in his wifes clothes or her panties since she left her shorts on the bed... and unstable woman by anyone accounts who injected herself into the crime on night one, with atleast remedial medical knowlege..

then you have a serial killer caught in the area who liked to remove the heads,arms and leg of his victims, and dump the torso in water.. not only is he caught in Fresno, but he lived in Alameda(sp??) which is very near where Laci's body washed up..

and lets not forget the other pregnant woman, whose torso was found in the bay also...from everything I've read, it's rare that a pregnant goes missing... and you have 2 right here next to each other, who wash up in the same waters and whose 'remains' are eerily similar..and everyone says "Nope, no connection"

and then you have the burglars....which going by aw2b's news clip wouldn't be the 1st burglars to ever kidnap a pregnant women who walked in on them....

how anyone can look at all this and still say with any degree of certainty that Scott Peterson is the killer amazes me to this day.... if anything there should be a little doubt, but nope.. the advocates for guilt only like CE when it's against Scott... not when it's beneficial to him...

[ekg]

I agree - Charles Stuart, Michael Fletcher, and Robert Cutts come to mind without any reasearch. I'd like to see more examples than one of burglars killing pregnant women. Oh, and Jeff MacDonald of course



I don't think aw2b is saying it happens more than any other crime...so why do you need more than one?

if you have 100 willl that convince you that it happens alot?

if you have a 1000 will that convince you that Scott didn't do it?

what does having more accomplish... there is aleast one... so it's not an insane and unlikely theory b/c noone would ever do it..

I've just never understood the reason behind the "I'd like to see more cases like that to prove it"...... all you need is one and it's proven..what's 10,000 going to do? prove it more?:confused:

[cookiewench]

Really?! Scott reported the burglary at around 7:45 pm on Jan 19, 2003, he told them that things were missing but someone also left a cut-off pair of black sweatpants on his bed that did not belong to him or Laci...IMO, that totally refutes the notion that he wanted to make it look like it was Laci that snuck back into the house...the next day when Brocchini found out that Kim McGregor was the one that broke into the house, Scott told Brocchini that the cut-off sweatpants could belong to McGregor, Brocchini asked McGregor about them, but he testified that he couldn't get her to admit they were hers...


I don't think the black sweatpants refute anything.

I'll repeat that I believe Scott wanted Kim to break in to make it look like Laci had been back for some things.

[cookiewench]

I don't see why people see the pliars as being a big deal. They were not used on Laci or for anthing else. The hair fell to the ground. It did not fall out of the pliars. The pliars were proven to have been rusted shut. They had not been used.

That's not true. The pliers had some rust on them. They were not rusted sht.

In fact, it's close to impossible for a pair of pliers to be rusted shut. It would take YEARS for that to happen.

You saw no testimony about the pliers being rusted shut.

Why are you making stuff up?

[cookiewench]

Scott did not have time to clean his pole.

He'd been finding the time to get Amber to clean his pole.

[adnoid]

...This is just another thing that tells me the robbery was set up by Brocchini.

Of all the theories (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/screwball.jpg) I have heard, this one certainly stands out. Perhaps this should be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Suite E1606
4500 Orange Grove Avenue
Sacramento, California 95825
(916) 481-9110

I just called - they're there right now.

[adnoid]

I'll repeat that I believe Scott wanted Kim to break in to make it look like Laci had been back for some things.

I agree with that. The list of items taken (i.e. Social Security card) were calculated to leave the impression that Laci had run away and just came back for some vital or sentimental items.

[adnoid]

Scott did not have time to clean his pole.

It would have taken just seconds.

[Miss Bootsie]

Of all the theories (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/screwball.jpg) I have heard, this one certainly stands out. Perhaps this should be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Suite E1606
4500 Orange Grove Avenue
Sacramento, California 95825
(916) 481-9110

I just called - they're there right now.

Oopsie, they will never forgive you.

[Otter]

It would have taken just seconds.

He could've put it in the machine with his dirty clothes. Or taken a shower with it, you know just propped up against the wall. :biggrin:

You would think an avid fisherman would know these pole cleaning tricks.

[adnoid]

...You would think an avid fisherman would know these pole cleaning tricks.

I was just cleaning it and it went off!

[adnoid]

Oopsie, they will never forgive you.

I called from someone else's cell phone for extra fun!

[thinkaboutit]

I agree with that. The list of items taken (i.e. Social Security card) were calculated to leave the impression that Laci had run away and just came back for some vital or sentimental items.

But why wouldn't McGregor tell the MPD that Scott asked her to take those items?

[adnoid]

But why wouldn't McGregor tell the MPD that Scott asked her to take those items?

She may have. There's no way for us to know. We don't have access to all the investigative documents, only what was used at trial and is not still under seal, which was a small portion of the total.

[adnoid]

What would they do? Absolutely nothing!...

How do you know this without asking?

They don'thave [sic] time for all of the calls from people discussing the Scott Peterson case. Also, it is my opinion and I am allowed to voice my opinion.

I have no reason to disagree with you on the first part. Also, I don't like anchovies on my pizza.

BTW, what did they say?

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Is this a trick question?

[ekg]

That's not true. The pliers had some rust on them. They were not rusted sht.

In fact, it's close to impossible for a pair of pliers to be rusted shut. It would take YEARS for that to happen.

You saw no testimony about the pliers being rusted shut.

Why are you making stuff up?

sounds like they were rusted shut to me?

Yoshida


193 pages $223.00

September 7, 2004

Hon. ALFRED DELUCCHI, Judge



413. Now, did you also say that the rusting was so severe that the manipulation of the tool was impacted on 144?

414. Yes.

415. Now, when you say that the rusting was so severe, do you mean that you had trouble even opening it to the full width?

416. Yes.

417. Okay. When you open it to the full width, what happens with the little coil or spring that's right here on the tool? Do you know?

418. No, I don't.

419. Okay. Do you know if that was part -- did you take a picture of that to see if that was rusted?

420. No.

421. Okay. Did you take a look to see what the normal position is for these pliers in an unrusted or a clean condition?

422. If I understand your question correctly, the pliers I pulled out of the toolbox in the laboratory were closed at the time I pulled them out.

:shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

I don't think aw2b is saying it happens more than any other crime...so why do you need more than one?

if you have 100 willl that convince you that it happens alot?

if you have a 1000 will that convince you that Scott didn't do it?

what does having more accomplish... there is aleast one... so it's not an insane and unlikely theory b/c noone would ever do it..

I've just never understood the reason behind the "I'd like to see more cases like that to prove it"...... all you need is one and it's proven..what's 10,000 going to do? prove it more?:confused:

Exactly! I provided this example to show that it is not far fetched for the burglars to have done it..

[cookiewench]

sounds like they were rusted shut to me?

Yoshida


:shrug:

Then why did you post testimony that says they were NOT rusted shut?

[Hey Paula]

Scott could not get the camera back. The police took it for evidence even though Scott did not press charges. This is just another thing that tells me the robbery was set up by Brocchini.

Why would Brocchini set up a "robbery" (it was a burglary as there was no violence or intimidation involved) when it would have been legal and uncomplicated to list "cameras, film video equipment" in the SW, and seize it along with the other items of evidence retrieved from the house?

[TopGunner]

you can't mean that? I mean it's been said 'why would the small-time burglars all of a sudden jump to kidnapping and murder' .. so how can you miss the point?

I think the story is relevant b/c it shows that it does happen....

so many things in this case are called preposterous, someone kidnapping and cutting out a baby was the biggest one that I remember.... but not a month after Laci was found, or the trial I can't remember which, that is exactly what happened to another woman...

so many times ppl would say "yeah right, like there is some crazy person living there who likes to remove the heads and extremities of his victims and keep them,hahaha these SII will say anything" and lo and behold, Perry Monroe turns up in Frenso with a propensity for just that kind of thing...


the SIG like to taunt the SII/SNG with, Why can't you see all the CE that points to him... You must not like CE and don't think it carries any weight, you must be one of those kinds of ppl...

well Ok... lets take a look

you have a women who's obsessed enough with Scott to break into his house,steal his underwear, prance around in his wife clothes, leaving the house either in his wifes clothes or her panties since she left her shorts on the bed... and unstable woman by anyone accounts who injected herself into the crime on night one, with atleast remedial medical knowlege..

then you have a serial killer caught in the area who liked to remove the heads,arms and leg of his victims, and dump the torso in water.. not only is he caught in Fresno, but he lived in Alameda(sp??) which is very near where Laci's body washed up..

and lets not forget the other pregnant woman, whose torso was found in the bay also...from everything I've read, it's rare that a pregnant goes missing... and you have 2 right here next to each other, who wash up in the same waters and whose 'remains' are eerily similar..and everyone says "Nope, no connection"

and then you have the burglars....which going by aw2b's news clip wouldn't be the 1st burglars to ever kidnap a pregnant women who walked in on them....

how anyone can look at all this and still say with any degree of certainty that Scott Peterson is the killer amazes me to this day.... if anything there should be a little doubt, but nope.. the advocates for guilt only like CE when it's against Scott... not when it's beneficial to him...



Err.....ekg, if you read what I said, I didn't refute the story AW2B posted at all.

My point was, IMO, because there's little to nothing substantial that even remotely suggests the wrong man is behind bars. And possibly because of that, because there isn't any meat on the bone, the NG's point fingers in too many directions to count: cults, conspiracy's, burglars, an unrelated but similar death, etc. It's old, boring, and annoying, IMO. I'd much perfer to hear something that actually makes sense, something that sheds complete and utter doubt on his guilt. So far, it hasn't happened once. IMO. ;)

[Miss Bootsie]

sounds like they were rusted shut to me?

Yoshida


:shrug:

Yoshida didn't do the actual comparison on the pliers until February 23, of 2003.

When shown a photo taken of the pliers when they were discovered in the boat, she testified that changes had occurred. The pliers had corroded from rust after the photo of the pliers was taken when they were first discovered.





YOSHIDA: Well, first what I did was to see if I could see any areas where the tool could have been used. In this case they were extremely rusted. I had a hard time actually even opening them. And to see if I could find any places where the rust was clear, showing that that area of the tool had been used to cut something recently.

HARRIS: Now, you say they were extremely rusted. Let me put up what's been marked as 214 B. Is this a photograph that you took as part of your examination?

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: And for counsel, that would be Bates stamped 23624.

GERAGOS: Okay. Thank you.

HARRIS: That particular photograph . . . Now, this, this photograph that we're looking at here, 214 B, can you describe for us what we're looking at

YOSHIDA: Again, this is I call it the back portion of the needle-nosed pliers. The round circle is the joint of the pliers where they cross, and that's their, like their joint. Like a joint in a pair of scissors. What you cannot see in this view is just above the joint, where the pliers can first open, there is a, actually a cutting surface, like almost looks like a cutting surface of wire cutters. But this view you can't see it. And further up is a flatter area where,

HARRIS: Talking about, going back to 214 A. Do you see that surface that you're talking about where you can cut, towards the middle of the pliers, right there

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: So that's the area that you're looking at in terms of the examination to see if it could be used as a cutting tool

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: Okay. Going back to the more closeup, 214 B. And you said that it was in a rusted condition. Have you had a chance to look at a photograph of this particular pair of pliers when it was initially recovered

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: Let me show you what's been marked as People's 120 A. Is this the photograph that you've had a chance to look at before

YOSHIDA: It appears to be.

HARRIS: Does that appear to be the same pair of pliers

YOSHIDA: It looks like the same style.

HARRIS: Now, putting up this particular photograph, 120 A, and 214 B, does there appear to be some changes that's occurred in the pliers

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: What's occurred

YOSHIDA: Looks like some corrosion has occurred. You have some white material forming over the metal. There's obvious signs of rust in my photograph that I took. Looks like that, looks like from, from here.

HARRIS: Now, when was it that you actually did the comparison or the analysis of these particular pliers

YOSHIDA: I believe it was February 23rd, but referring to my notes...excuse me, February 24th.

HARRIS: February 24th?

JUDGE: What year?

GERAGOS: 03

YOSHIDA: I'm sorry. 03
JUDGE: Thank you.

[adnoid]

We need to start looking for Dark Skinned Strangers in Australia. A giant squid has been placed on the beach (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070711/sc_nm/australia_squid_dc) and the corrupt Media™ is already claiming that it washed up, with NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that it had EVER been in the ocean. Nobody saw it in the ocean, so I believe it was kept elsewhere and placed on the beach to frame someone. There is a cover story saying that Park Rangers moved it from the water, but they wear uniforms so they would lose their jobs if they didn't back up the story - everyone knows that. I'll bet they don't even check it for caffeine, and if they did they wouldn't try to match it up with the caffeine from the coffee cup on the counter in Scott's house that Kim later used to break into the house to see if this squid was forced to drink coffee from the same Starbuck's outlet that the caffeine in Laci's system came from!

Can Ron prove he has never owned a pet squid? I didn't think so. And I'll bet the only reason the tentacles are "missing" is that the red boots were a PERFECT FIT.

You know, the Australians are supposed to be our allies. How can they conspire against us like this?

[deputydi]

We need to start looking for Dark Skinned Strangers in Australia. A giant squid has been placed on the beach (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070711/sc_nm/australia_squid_dc) and the corrupt Media™ is already claiming that it washed up, with NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that it had EVER been in the ocean. Nobody saw it in the ocean, so I believe it was kept elsewhere and placed on the beach to frame someone. There is a cover story saying that Park Rangers moved it from the water, but they wear uniforms so they would lose their jobs if they didn't back up the story - everyone knows that. I'll bet they don't even check it for caffeine, and if they did they wouldn't try to match it up with the caffeine from the coffee cup on the counter in Scott's house that Kim later used to break into the house to see if this squid was forced to drink coffee from the same Starbuck's outlet that the caffeine in Laci's system came from!

Can Ron prove he has never owned a pet squid? I didn't think so. And I'll bet the only reason the tentacles are "missing" is that the red boots were a PERFECT FIT.

You know, the Australians are supposed to be our allies. How can they conspire against us like this?
:lol: Of Course!

[I'mSun]

We need to start looking for Dark Skinned Strangers in Australia. A giant squid has been placed on the beach (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070711/sc_nm/australia_squid_dc) and the corrupt Media™ is already claiming that it washed up, with NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that it had EVER been in the ocean. Nobody saw it in the ocean, so I believe it was kept elsewhere and placed on the beach to frame someone. There is a cover story saying that Park Rangers moved it from the water, but they wear uniforms so they would lose their jobs if they didn't back up the story - everyone knows that. I'll bet they don't even check it for caffeine, and if they did they wouldn't try to match it up with the caffeine from the coffee cup on the counter in Scott's house that Kim later used to break into the house to see if this squid was forced to drink coffee from the same Starbuck's outlet that the caffeine in Laci's system came from!

Can Ron prove he has never owned a pet squid? I didn't think so. And I'll bet the only reason the tentacles are "missing" is that the red boots were a PERFECT FIT.

You know, the Australians are supposed to be our allies. How can they conspire against us like this?You are absolutely right! Empirically. Once we locate the conspirators, we will savagely impeach them.

[adnoid]

You are absolutely right! Empirically. Once we locate the conspirators, we will savagely impeach them.

With a side of jeopardy attached!

[I'mSun]

Here is a case where a pregnant woman was abducted because she walked in on a burglary in progress..so it does happen!!

The family of a pregnant Augusta woman begged Friday for her safe return as the desperate search garnered national attention.
*snipped*
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/041904/met_found.shtmlMurder is the leading cause of death of pregnant women.
Here is a link: http://www.now.org/issues/violence/043003pregnant.html
Many more women are killed by their husbands than by burglars.

[Wearing A Halo]

[/B]
With a side of jeopardy attached!

Indubitably (Squawk)

[I'mSun]

Brocchini needed the recorder and which is why I believe he had Kim break in.
Why did Brocchini need a recorder so badly that he had someone steal it from Scott & Laci's home?
I can't change my mind on what I believe.
Who is asking you to change your mind?

[deputydi]

Brocchini needed the recorder and which is why I believe he had Kim break in.
Also, a neighbor reported the break in at 2:00 in the morning, but no one responded to the call. I can't remember where I read this, but I remember reading it.
I can't change my mind on what I believe.
No one is asking you to change your mind -- just back up what you are posting as fact. You make these statements and never provide a link -- why are we supposed to believe you?

[JustMyOpinion]

Brocchini needed the recorder and which is why I believe he had Kim break in.
.

Clarifying.. it is your belief that a police detective had a citizen ( with a history of public drunkenness) break in to Scott's home so she could get a video recorder and dispose of it in a grease bin behind a restaurant?

[adnoid]

Clarifying.. it is your belief that a police detective had a citizen ( with a history of public drunkenness) break in to Scott's home so she could get a video recorder and dispose of it in a grease bin behind a restaurant?

The MPD would have to find a girl without brain to do something like that.

[I'mSun]

The MPD would have to find a girl without brain to do something like that.You are exactly right. :beer:

[adnoid]

Brocchini setting up the robbery is only my opinion. I feel Brocchini needed the recorder and it was not covered in the warrant. Kim took the camera and put it in the dumpster for him.

I also feel the reason Kim did this is because Brocchini helped her in her a court matter. She didn't want to, but she did to keep from being sent to jail.

All of this is my opinion.

You clearly have no comprehension of what an opinion is. You are making a falsifiable assertion of fact, which is a precondition for a finding of defamation under the law - and you are taking a real chance doing it in public. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. You assert Al set up the robbery. If he were to bring suit against you for defamation - and I really wish he would - you would then be required to show that he did set up the robbery, or you would be found to have defamed him and could be liable for damages to his reputation.

Putting the word "opinion" after any arbitrary statement does not magically transform it into an opinion. Likewise, you can express an opinion clearly without ever saying it is an opinion.

It's not difficult to comprehend, really.

[ekg]

Then why did you post testimony that says they were NOT rusted shut?


did I?

I must have mis-read this then...


415. Now, when you say that the rusting was so severe, do you mean that you had trouble even opening it to the full width?

416. Yes.

.........

422. If I understand your question correctly, the pliers I pulled out of the toolbox in the laboratory were closed at the time I pulled them out.





they were rusted and they were difficult to open and when she took them from the toolbox they were closed....

to me that says rusted and shut...:shrug:

[ekg]

Err.....ekg, if you read what I said, I didn't refute the story AW2B posted at all.

My point was, IMO, because there's little to nothing substantial that even remotely suggests the wrong man is behind bars. And possibly because of that, because there isn't any meat on the bone, the NG's point fingers in too many directions to count: cults, conspiracy's, burglars, an unrelated but similar death, etc. It's old, boring, and annoying, IMO. I'd much perfer to hear something that actually makes sense, something that sheds complete and utter doubt on his guilt. So far, it hasn't happened once. IMO. ;)

well I gave you a cpl directions that do have meat on them..... I can't help it that it's meat you don't like...:D

[cookiewench]

did I?

I must have mis-read this then...



they were rusted and they were difficult to open and when she took them from the toolbox they were closed....

to me that says rusted and shut...:shrug:

Haven't you ever had anything get rusted shut? Rusted shut means just that - rusted shut. Won't open.

Not that it matters, because the rust was from them sitting in the salt water in the bottom of the boat.

The poster implied that Scott wouldn't have been using them because of the rust, but the rust came afterwards.

[Lavindar]

Adnoid, you do not have to like my post. Your signing on here should have known there would be post that you did not like.

ON this forum, my name is sassie and you need to post to what my name is. I am not calling you names and I would appreciate it that you don't start on me.

Administrator, would you ask adnoid and the others to respond to me by using sassie please? Thank you in advance!


I do not see where adnoid used your name at all - he stated
"The MPD would have to find a girl without brain to do something like that." I believe he was referring to Kim McGregor, not you.

More comprehension problems?

[Lavindar]

Haven't you ever had anything get rusted shut? Rusted shut means just that - rusted shut. Won't open.

Not that it matters, because the rust was from them sitting in the salt water in the bottom of the boat.

The poster implied that Scott wouldn't have been using them because of the rust, but the rust came afterwards.
YOSHIDA: I believe it was February 23rd, but referring to my notes...excuse me, February 24th.

HARRIS: February 24th?

JUDGE: What year?

GERAGOS: 03

YOSHIDA: I'm sorry. 03

JUDGE: Thank you.

HARRIS: Now, the photograph that's up there is 120 A. The testimony is that that photograph was taken on December 27th and that those pliers were found in the bottom of a boat in which there was water that was collected. If that was saltwater that these pliers had been exposed to, does that cause corrosion or rust to happen on pliers?

YOSHIDA: It actually will increase the time or increase the rusting, or speed of the rusting, if you have saltwater versus regular water.

HARRIS: Did you actually have to go back and look at these pliers on a subsequent occasion

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: So we have 214 B back up there again. Did you go back and try and take a swabbing or clean these at a later point in time

YOSHIDA: Yes, I did.

HARRIS: Referring to your report number 11.

GERAGOS: BATES number?

HARRIS: 3769. Or with the notes, 23674.

GERAGOS: Thanks.

HARRIS: When was it that you went back and looked at these particular pliers?

YOSHIDA: Referring to my notes, this would have been March 19th, 2003.

HARRIS: So this was approximately three, almost four weeks after you had done your initial analysis of these pliers

YOSHIDA: Correct.

HARRIS: When you went back and looked at them, was there any difference from when you had seen them in February to when you looked at them in March

YOSHIDA: I do recall when I first took them out of the envelope, I kind of went Wow, there's even much more rust than I had recalled seeing the first time. So I was surprised at how much even more ruster (sic) they'd gotten the second time I received them.

HARRIS: Okay. When you had them in February, so you do this analysis in February and you look at them, do the examination, take the photographs that we're looking at, do the pliers go back in the same packaging as they were in before

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: So they're just placed into a bag and preserved or stored until the next time you look at them

YOSHIDA: Yes. This would appear to support the more rusty appearance of the pliers. Nothing says they were rusted shut in February They were put in a bag when found (in bottom of a boat with salt water in it and were in the same bag when re-opened the second time.

[adnoid]

Adnoid, you do not have to like my post. Your signing on here should have known there would be post that you did not like.

ON this forum, my name is sassie and you need to post to what my name is. I am not calling you names and I would appreciate it that you don't start on me.

Administrator, would you ask adnoid and the others to respond to me by using sassie please? Thank you in advance!

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Lavindar]

Why would Brocchini set up a "robbery" (it was a burglary as there was no violence or intimidation involved) when it would have been legal and uncomplicated to list "cameras, film video equipment" in the SW, and seize it along with the other items of evidence retrieved from the house?


The truth is ALWAYS simpler. Too bad Scott never realized that

[attorneywan2be]

did I?

I must have mis-read this then...



they were rusted and they were difficult to open and when she took them from the toolbox they were closed....

to me that says rusted and shut...:shrug:


She did say this: they were EXTREMELY rusted and I had a hard time actually even opening them....IMO, they were definitely rusted and shut..

[Lavindar]

She did say this: they were EXTREMELY rusted and I had a hard time actually even opening them....IMO, they were definitely rusted and shut.. They were also more rusted a moth later than the first time she examined them. They were not rusted shut when the hairs were recovered from them. They were place in an envelope, looked at in February and were rusted, then placed back in same envelope and looked at again in a month and were even more rusted. I will never leave any tools near salt water - just from what I have learned in this case.

[I'mSun]

Adnoid, you do not have to like my post. Your signing on here should have known there would be post that you did not like.

ON this forum, my name is sassie and you need to post to what my name is. I am not calling you names and I would appreciate it that you don't start on me.

Administrator, would you ask adnoid and the others to respond to me by using sassie please? Thank you in advance!You quoted me, yet addressed this to Adnoid. My name is not Adnoid. I didn't call you any names, and from what I see, neither did Adnoid. Would you please show us the name(s) he called you? I'm just a bit confused why you think this, Sassie.

[Lavindar]

Brocchini needed the recorder and which is why I believe he had Kim break in.
Also, a neighbor reported the break in at 2:00 in the morning, but no one responded to the call. I can't remember where I read this, but I remember reading it.
I can't change my mind on what I believe.
Sure you can - when you are shown the FACTS. People change their mind all the time. The inability to do so shows a rigid, non-educated point of view. I thought Scott was innocent and I changed my mind. Others have too.
I don't think Amie could have identified Kim @ 2am in the morning, let alone identify the car she put things into. Street lights aren't that good on Covena

[Lavindar]

Here's a good example of belief vs fact. I am pregnant. I believe I am having a girl. It is a boy. Do I change my belief. Damn straight I do - unless I am going to name him Jacqueline Peterson........lol

[ekg]

Haven't you ever had anything get rusted shut? Rusted shut means just that - rusted shut. Won't open.

Not that it matters, because the rust was from them sitting in the salt water in the bottom of the boat.

The poster implied that Scott wouldn't have been using them because of the rust, but the rust came afterwards.

I've had many thing rust shut.. sometimes they can't be opened and sometimes I just have trouble opening them all the way...

kinda like what the testimony was..

415. Now, when you say that the rusting was so severe, do you mean that you had trouble even opening it to the full width?
416. Yes.

and you're still ignoring the testimony that says when she got them they were closed..


422. If I understand your question correctly, the pliers I pulled out of the toolbox in the laboratory were closed at the time I pulled them out.


how can you infer anything other than they were rusted and they were closed?

am I'm the one who's reaching in the other thread b/c I don't believe the testimony? lol..:tongue:

[ekg]

She did say this: they were EXTREMELY rusted and I had a hard time actually even opening them....IMO, they were definitely rusted and shut..


mine too....... but maybe we are also girls without a brain...:shrug:

[ekg]

Adnoid, you do not have to like my post. Your signing on here should have known there would be post that you did not like.

ON this forum, my name is sassie and you need to post to what my name is. I am not calling you names and I would appreciate it that you don't start on me.

Administrator, would you ask adnoid and the others to respond to me by using sassie please? Thank you in advance!




:) you'll get used to adnoid, he used to post some pretty good information... but right now he seems to be going thru a smarty-pants phase..I'm sure he grow out of that soon and get back posting debates instead of funnies...(nothing but luv for ya adnoid-:tongue: )

he kinda reminds me of treetime from CTV...LOL

[Miss Bootsie]

She did say this: they were EXTREMELY rusted and I had a hard time actually even opening them....IMO, they were definitely rusted and shut..

What was the reason those pliers became EXTREMELY rusted AW?
When did they become corroded and rusted?

The pliers were not rusted shut when they were recovered and photos were taken on Dec. 27, 2002.


Photo 120A was taken when the pliers were initially discovered in the boat - Dec. 27, 2002.

Sarah Yoshida (Senior criminalist), took photos 214-A and 214 -B on
February 24, 2003.

She was shown photo 120-A (the photo taken on Dec. 27, 2002 when the pliers were discovered in the boat).
She was then shown 214 -B (the photo she took of the pliers on February 24, 2003.

She testified: Looks like some corrosion has occurred. You have some white material forming over the metal. There's obvious signs of rust in my photograph that I took.

She went back on March 19, 2003 to take swabbing samples.
I do recall when I first took them out of the envelope, I kind of went Wow, there's even much more rust than I had recalled seeing the first time. So I was surprised at how much even more ruster (sic) they'd gotten the second time I received them

The pliers were placed into the same bag and stored.





HARRIS: Now, you say they were extremely rusted. Let me put up what's been marked as 214 B. Is this a photograph that you took as part of your examination?

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: And for counsel, that would be Bates stamped 23624.

GERAGOS: Okay. Thank you.

HARRIS: That particular photograph . . . Now, this, this photograph that we're looking at here, 214 B, can you describe for us what we're looking at

YOSHIDA: Again, this is I call it the back portion of the needle-nosed pliers. The round circle is the joint of the pliers where they cross, and that's their, like their joint. Like a joint in a pair of scissors. What you cannot see in this view is just above the joint, where the pliers can first open, there is a, actually a cutting surface, like almost looks like a cutting surface of wire cutters. But this view you can't see it. And further up is a flatter area where,

HARRIS: Talking about, going back to 214 A. Do you see that surface that you're talking about where you can cut, towards the middle of the pliers, right there

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: So that's the area that you're looking at in terms of the examination to see if it could be used as a cutting tool

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: Okay. Going back to the more closeup, 214 B. And you said that it was in a rusted condition. Have you had a chance to look at a photograph of this particular pair of pliers when it wasinitially recovered

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: Let me show you what's been marked as People's 120 A. Is this the photograph that you've had a chance to look at before

YOSHIDA: It appears to be.

HARRIS: Does that appear to be the same pair of pliers

YOSHIDA: It looks like the same style.

HARRIS: Now, putting up this particular photograph, 120 A, and 214 B, does there appear to be some changes that's occurred in the pliers

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: What's occurred

YOSHIDA: Looks like some corrosion has occurred. You have some white material forming over the metal. There's obvious signs of rust in my photograph that I took. Looks like that, looks like from, from here.

HARRIS: Now, when was it that you actually did the comparison or the analysis of these particular pliers

YOSHIDA: I believe it was February 23rd, but referring to my notes...excuse me, February 24th.

HARRIS: February 24th?

JUDGE: What year?

GERAGOS: 03

YOSHIDA: I'm sorry. 03

JUDGE: Thank you.

HARRIS: [B]Now, the photograph that's up there is 120 A. The testimony is that that photograph was taken on December 27th and that those pliers were found in the bottom of a boat in which there was water that was collected. If that was saltwater that these pliers had been exposed to, does that cause corrosion or rust to happen on pliers?

YOSHIDA: It actually will increase the time or increase the rusting, or speed of the rusting, if you have saltwater versus regular water.

HARRIS: Did you actually have to go back and look at these pliers on a subsequent occasion

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: So we have 214 B back up there again. Did you go back and try and take a swabbing or clean these at a later point in time

YOSHIDA: Yes, I did.


HARRIS: So we have 214 B back up there again. Did you go back and try and take a swabbing or clean these at a later point in time

YOSHIDA: Yes, I did.

HARRIS: Referring to your report number 11.

GERAGOS: BATES number?

HARRIS: 3769. Or with the notes, 23674.

GERAGOS: Thanks.

HARRIS: When was it that you went back and looked at these particular pliers?

YOSHIDA: Referring to my notes, this would have been March 19th, 2003.

HARRIS: So this was approximately three, almost four weeks after you had done your initial analysis of these pliers

YOSHIDA: Correct.

HARRIS: When you went back and looked at them, was there any difference from when you had seen them in February to when you looked at them in March

YOSHIDA: I do recall when I first took them out of the envelope, I kind of went Wow, there's even much more rust than I had recalled seeing the first time. So I was surprised at how much even more ruster (sic) they'd gotten the second time I received them.

HARRIS: Okay. When you had them in February, so you do this analysis in February and you look at them, do the examination, take the photographs that we're looking at, do the pliers go back in the same packaging as they were in before

YOSHIDA: Yes.

HARRIS: So they're just placed into a bag and preserved or stored until the next time you look at them

YOSHIDA: Yes.

[ekg]

Sure you can - when you are shown the FACTS. People change their mind all the time. The inability to do so shows a rigid, non-educated point of view. I thought Scott was innocent and I changed my mind. Others have too.
I don't think Amie could have identified Kim @ 2am in the morning, let alone identify the car she put things into. Street lights aren't that good on Covena

wait.. wait... wait... you're doubting her sight...... and I'm doubting her hearing.......


Lavindar, we've mangled the poor woman ya know...:lol:

[Hey Paula]

:) you'll get used to adnoid, he used to post some pretty good information... but right now he seems to be going thru a smarty-pants phase..I'm sure he grow out of that soon and get back posting debates instead of funnies...(nothing but luv for ya adnoid-:tongue: )

he kinda reminds me of treetime from CTV...LOL

Hi Ekg! :seeya:

Tree was a firm SII, but very funny!

I think Sassie might be mistaken, as I've read Adnoid's posts several times, and can't find one where he called Sassie a name.

IMO

[ekg]

What was the reason those pliers became EXTREMELY rusted AW?
When did they become corroded and rusted?

The pliers were not rusted shut when they were recovered and photos were taken of them on Dec. 27, 2002.

Photo 120A was taken when the pliers were initially discovered in the boat - Dec. 27, 2002.

Sarah Yoshida (Senior criminalist), took photos 214-A and 214 -B on February 24, 2003.

She was shown photo 120-A (the photo taken on Dec. 27, 2002 when the pliers were discovered in the boat).
She was then shown 214 -B (the photo she took of the pliers on February 24, 2003.

She testified: Looks like some corrosion has occurred. You have some white material forming over the metal. There's obvious signs of rust in my photograph that I took. Looks like that, looks like from, from here.

She went back on March 19, 2003 to take swabbing samples.
I do recall when I first took them out of the envelope, I kind of went Wow, there's even much more rust than I had recalled seeing the first time. So I was surprised at how much even more ruster (sic) they'd gotten the second time I received them

The pliers were placed into the same bag and stored.

is there anywhere I can look at these pics? thats the one thing I don't have a link to.... the evidence pics...

thanks.

[ekg]

Hi Ekg! :seeya:

Tree was a firm SII, but very funny!

I think Sassie might be mistaken, as I've read Adnoid's posts several times, and can't find one where he called Sassie a name.

IMO

I think since he was replying to someone who replied to her and he said something about a girl without a brain.... she may have thought he was referring to her... its an easy mistake to make IMO

yes, Tree was a SII...... but he was a smarty-butt too...... LOL

he had a "tag-line" that I can't for the life of me remember... but he'd say it in HUGE BOLD WORDS and then :beer: after it....HA! anyway, adnoid reminds me of Tree(only sig-lol)

[adnoid]

...he said something about a girl without a brain.... she may have thought he was referring to her... its an easy mistake to make...

You got it.

[Lavindar]

I would have to say you know absolutley nothing about what is going on.

Yes, they were referring to me. Notice the darkened area of girl without fear
I guess they didn't think I understood them the first time a round.

Besides, they have a spig board on ez board and they talk about all of the g's and changing their nics. My original nic is, girl_without_fear


I heard that board is no longer. Only thing I can find on ezboard is Crimes2Solve and there hasn't been a post on the Peterson portion since 2006

[Lavindar]

It does not matter what someone else thinks about her hearing or her vision. She obviously was right in what she saw and heard.

I didn't say I am not going to change my mind because someone asked me. I was saying it just to let everyone know where I stood regardless of how much stuff I hear to try and prove Scott guilty.

If you are not here with an open mind, why are you here?
To bombast people?

[Lavindar]

I understand completely what fact from fiction means. Not being rude or anything, but obviously you feel it has two different meanings. (One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false)

When ever did the prosecutor prove for fact Scott killed Laci? Fact is something you can see or touch.

Brocchini is not going to sue me for what I have to say. Freedom of Speech is the ammendmant act 1. Besides which, what can he sue me for? My opinion? What about all of the names and slandering others do on the forums? Would they have the same right? Or does it apply only to the men in blue? Not! I know my rights! Brocchini might not like what I have to say, but neither did Scott and his family like what he said about Scott. It was not Brocchini's job to lie about the insurance Scott got on Laci a year prior to her having gone missing and making it look as though it was taken out a month before she disappeared.

Mark's opening statement
Then in January, there was a full-scale effort by the police to turn the family and friends against Scott. You will hear from Detective Brocchini, you will hear from the family, that they went and started telling them all kinds of things that were not true. One of the things that they did is they suggested that there was a financial motive to this case. And they told people Scott had just taken out an insurance policy on Laci. $250k insurance policy. The leaked that to the Modesto Bee which puts it into a headline in the paper.

That morning, when the headline reads financial motive and insurance policy purchased, Brocchini, at six in the morning calls up one of Scott's friends and says, go read the Modesto Bee. I want you to see that. Brocchini knew at that point, because he had already talked to the insurance agent, that that was not true. That it was a retirement vehicle that had insurance on Scott for Laci. And yet they just put that out there. They put it out there, that somehow he was in financial straits, and that he needed to off Laci, or that she was too demanding, or something like that.
It also was not right that Brocchini went to the maternity store where Laci purchased her clothes and bought an exact pair of pants that she was found in. It was an attempt to make it look as though they were the same ones.

Mark's opening statement

Geragos: Thanks. (Pause) Yesterday there was, the prosecutor talked a lot about the khaki slacks, remember that? And that she was found, Laci was found in khaki slacks. The slacks that she was found in, there's a picture right here, are, I think exactly what happened is when Laci was found there was a label on the back of the pants. The detective took that label, went to the Motherhood Store, ran the SKU number, came back and got these pants. They produced a picture of the pants. And then there's a receipt which shows that these pants are the same pants that she bought.

Now, the prosecution yesterday was saying that they were going to show you that the evidence was that she was wearing khaki slacks the day before, the 23rd. What the evidence is going to show you is that they've already shown this picture to Amy, who is sitting in the first row there, the second one in, the second lady in, and they showed it to Amy who was working at Salon Salon. That is the haircutting place where Amy has worked. She saw Laci the night before. Amy was cutting Scott's hair.

They showed Amy the picture of these pants and Amy said those are not the pants she was wearing. Specifically said they were not, [B]I think that Amy had said they were not drawstring, they did not have the style of pants, style of pocket. They did not have this and they did not have this.

So this idea that was suggested, whether intentionally or not, that the evidence is going to show that the pants that she was wearing on the 23rd were the pants that she was found in are just, is just plain not true. In fact, I think they had mentioned yesterday also that they had gone to the, the police had gone to Salon Salon where Amy works to try to get the surveillance tapes and that they recycled the tapes out.

There is more to what all Brocchini did to try and get everyone to hate Scott, but it would take a lot of pages in order for me to tell you all of them.

Bottom line, you can try and get others to think Brocchini can sue me, but he can't and thats that.


How could Amy know or not know if maternity pants were drawstring - the drawstring would be hidden by the maternity top. Geez, how stupid does Geragos think people are?

What makes you think you are so important in the scheme of things. Are you out taking measurements or interviewing people? No, you are posting your "facts" which are not, on the internet. You think that will free a convicted murderer? Get a life. Better yet, take some time with your family and get off the internet. Your husband must be so proud of you

[Lavindar]

Ok, Sassie, you've posted Mark Garegos's opening statemetn which can not be considered as testimony. Where is the link to Amber's receiving welfare and food stamps as you stated those as FACTS, not opinion.

[Otter]

I'm still curious about the red boots.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MCG/FPF1584~Waiting-Posters.jpg

[Otter]

I will not quote the post, but now a jurist respected enough to sit on on the US 9th CC when there had been a vacancy, is being called a liar.

I believe LE is used to it, its a common trial tactic. But please Sassie, give me a reason for your allegation. Direct me to what leads you to state this so emphatically.

And if I may opine, you make accusations about other posters with no basis either. There has been no drama on this board until now. I for one would appreciate it if you stopped, and also to start providing back up to things you state as fact. TIA.

[deputydi]

Here's a good example of belief vs fact. I am pregnant. I believe I am having a girl. It is a boy. Do I change my belief. Damn straight I do - unless I am going to name him Jacqueline Peterson........lol

:lol: I really needed that laugh.

[adnoid]

I understand completely what fact from fiction means. Not being rude or anything, but obviously you feel it has two different meanings...

Well, you've got me there. I do see fact and fiction as different. If you do not, well, you can do that.

Brocchini is not going to sue me for what I have to say. Freedom of Speech is the ammendmant act 1. Besides which, what can he sue me for? My opinion? What about all of the names and slandering others do on the forums? Would they have the same right? Or does it apply only to the men in blue? Not! I know my rights!...

We're talking on two completely different levels. If you feel the 1st Amendment's ("act 1"? What is that?) protections against the Federal government using prior restraint allow for willful defamation, there are two centuries of slander and libel verdicts that need overturning. Never mind. Have a ball.

Mark's opening statement...

Did I miss the announcement of National Non Sequitur Month?

[Otter]

I was going to post about the reason Ifelt this way about the jurors, but I figure I will wait until I can get the page numbers later. I don't want to post something and not have a source for what I post.

Can't you form an opinion from known sources? That would not require a link with the addition of "IMO". However, statements such as "liar" will be challenged.

Yes otter, there is drama taking place here. I am here to discuss this case and because you all do not like what I have to say try and think of all you can to makeme out to be wrong.

You are not here to discuss the case. You make outrageous, IMO statements of fact. Show me that you're not wrong.

Lav says I can't post opening statement. Why not? It is a source, is it not? I was told I am wrong for my opinion on Brocchini and shehopes he sues me. I was told the Federal Investigation has been called. Big deal! I do not care. Keep it to yourself. I wasn't born yesterday. If I thought I could be sued, I would not be posting what I think about Brocchini.

You can post an opening statement. Do you understand that what an attorney says is not evidence? MG also said he'd prove SP innocent, he didn't, he didn't even put on much of a CIC. Lol, I didn't say a word about you being sued. There's more than on G here, we all have one nic each and we don't use others.

I understand why some might want a link, but if there is no link to what I am saying and it is not my personal opinion, then how do I prove something?

Then you don't say it. I have lots of points I remember but can't recall from where, or the source no longer exists. That's why we use "IIRC ..." and we don't state it as fact. And "IMO". Its not hard.

You all do not have to like me, it is no sweat off my back. It is not the first time and I am sure it won't be the last.

This hate has also carried over to my web page and to my e-mail. I am not saying it was by you, but it was from someone on this forum. You need to grow up and start acting your age, instead of your shoe size.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I do not have your email, nor am I aware that you have a web page. I do not appreciate being insulted. IIRC, IMO, I've never said anything untowards to you, nor has anyone else.

[adnoid]

Act/Ammendment not really a big difference...

No kidding!

...The Ammendments are laws that will not change....

No kidding!

...You did not know, I already knew the law.

I'm quite relieved Scott has you on his side. I'm sure justice will prevail.

[TopGunner]

I was going to post about the reason Ifelt this way about the jurors, but I figure I will wait until I can get the page numbers later. I don't want to post something and not have a source for what I post.

Yes otter, there is drama taking place here. I am here to discuss this case and because you all do not like what I have to say try and think of all you can to makeme out to be wrong.

Lav says I can't post opening statement. Why not? It is a source, is it not? I was told I am wrong for my opinion on Brocchini and shehopes he sues me. I was told the Federal Investigation has been called. Big deal! I do not care. Keep it to yourself. I wasn't born yesterday. If I thought I could be sued, I would not be posting what I think about Brocchini.

I understand why some might want a link, but if there is no link to what I am saying and it is not my personal opinion, then how do I prove something?

You all do not have to like me, it is no sweat off my back. It is not the first time and I am sure it won't be the last.

This hate has also carried over to my web page and to my e-mail. I am not saying it was by you, but it was from someone on this forum. You need to grow up and start acting your age, instead of your shoe size.



Sassie, I'm not going to suggest you relax, because you'll just take that as ganging up on you, but I will say that IMO, you are really crossing the line saying all these people hate you and attack you. A bit of a drama queen, IMO, and it's totally uncalled for. If people are asking you for links keep in mind, it's what we do here, g or ng, if we have no recollection of what's posted. Lastly, I have been inhaling this case for 4 1/2 years, and close to 99.9 % of what you post, I've never heard of - or, as already stated, you post "opening statements" which is akin to heresay, it has no bearing on the appeal issure OR the guilty verdict, so what IS the point?

[Otter]

Cassie, I read your post carefully.

You need to grow up and start acting your age, instead of your shoe size.

Regardless of who this was directed at, it was uncalled for. I have no idea if you read back to any extent or just jumped in. I suspect the latter, because you would see how we discuss this case.

You introduced in this forum IMO, what you describe in your last sentence.

[TopGunner]

My point being, there are things that people should know and Mark's O.S. has a lot of interesting information. I don't see what the problem is. It is surrounding the Scott case and I did post where I got it. Just because it provides good insight for Scott is why you don;t like it.

Your opinion or anothers opinion is not testimony either, but it is allowed.

I just don't understand why people feeltheneed to argue. Mark's O.S. was a part of the trial. It should have the same amount of weight as testimony.

I will not argue the comments made to me. It is in black and white for all to see.

Sassie - MG opening statement has no weight. No credibilty. It does not equate to testimony given by those under oath. MG lied through the OS, which is why he's the laughing stock of his peers. He fell flat on his face and produced not a darn thing promised. But, if you feel the need to post his OS over and over again, fine with me. Won't make it true though.

[adnoid]

...start acting your age, instead of your shoe size.

Wow. I'm crushed. I've been put in my place, no doubt.

[Lavindar]

Perhaps you need to ask Amy about the draw string. Lav, you are like so many others. They have a hard time dealing with what I have to say about things and then you all do what your best at. You call us liars and tell us to get off thenet. Why don't you get off? Your opinion is no better than mine and I do not place it as being more valuable than mine.

Just because Brocchini talked a lot during the investigation does not mean he was right. Just because a judge covered the lies as I see it, does not make the lies to be true. Just because 12 people had zero common sense, does notmake Scott guilty and which by the way,is the reason I am here.

I don't fall for empty threats of being sued and this gets one upset? I can't help this. I also can't help the fact that I learned very early in life, you don't beat around the bush. If being blunt on the way I feel of Brocchini upsets him, then you all know my e-mail address, have him take it up with me. You shouldn't allow your blood pressure to rise over someone you do not even know.

I have never in all of my life known so many people tell me or anyone else to go spend time with their family when they are actually on these forums more than I am. It has been forever and a day since I have posted on here and I am getting caught up. Perhaps, it is everyone else that needs to go spend time with their family. Gee whiz! I don't get upset in what you kids post about Scott. Why? Because I know it is not true. You know what they say! If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
You are right. I do havfe a hard time with someone who states FACTS about people and they either forgets to try to find out where they heard it or deliberately denies saying exactly what they said. You say you "read" it somewhere - well somewhere isn't good enough. You talk about a site that cannot be repeated here and that is where most of this information comes from, not from any truthful or even any media source. For someone who claims to KNOW so much, you don't seem to know anything - but you sure BELIEVE a lot that you cannot prove.

Let's see, no red boots, no welfare, no foodstamps. People have been banned for a lot less than that. You have no clue how long anyone is on this forum. Again you name call and point fingers. I would like to see you put some proof where your accusations are. Now that your true identity is out there, I think you need to cop to all the lying and nastiness that you have done on that other "nicname" you love. On ignore you go since that is all you are worth with your lies and innuendos The only fact you have proven is that you have NO facts to share

[lilmiss1960]

Why did Brocchini need a recorder so badly that he had someone steal it from Scott & Laci's home?

Who is asking you to change your mind?

IMO, I agree with Sassy. Why would he? Because the SW expired, how about that? Maybe if they can get the original records unsealed, we will then know based on what evidence a SW was issued.
IMO, the judge might have realized that they had no evidence, just one detectives "gut", (and a very fat gut it is), feeling.

Since the SW expired, and since there was no body, no sign of a struggle of any kind, then there was NO evidence Laci was dead, so maybe Old Al felt he wouldn't be able to obtain another SW. What better way to get what you want? IMO, Old Al knew about Kim's history.

In most cases, an abductor will join searches for the missing person they abducted. I've seen it happen many times. Who knows how Al knew about Kim's record, but let's assume he did.

I don't believe for a second that Scott hired Kim to do it to make it look like Laci came back. That is the most redicules thing I have ever heard.

[Lavindar]

My point being, there are things that people should know and Mark's O.S. has a lot of interesting information. I don't see what the problem is. It is surrounding the Scott case and I did post where I got it. Just because it provides good insight for Scott is why you don;t like it.

Your opinion or anothers opinion is not testimony either, but it is allowed.

I just don't understand why people feeltheneed to argue. Mark's O.S. was a part of the trial. It should have the same amount of weight as testimony.

I will not argue the comments made to me. It is in black and white for all to see.

1) Judge Delucchi: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. This is the case of People versus Scott Peterson. The record should reflect the defendant is present with counsel. The first order of business this morning is, we're going to have to swear the jury to try the cause. So if all would please rise, and the clerk will swear you.
2) Clerk: Raise your right hand. Do you and each of you understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the Court? Respond with "I do".
3) Jurors: Unison: I do.
4) Clerk: Be seated.
5) Judge Delucchi: Okay. What I am going to do this morning, I'm going to pre-instruct you with respect to certain issues during this trial that you would be called on to resolve. And you will hear these all over again. These are only part of the instructions, but they are very important. And I wanted to instruct you now about some of the evidence that you are going to hear first of all. Members and alternate members of the jury, you have been selected and sworn as jurors and alternate jurors. I shall now instruct you as to your basic functions, duties, and conduct. At the conclusion of the case I will give you further instructions on the law. All of the Court's instructions, whether given before, during or after the taking of testimony are of equal importance. You must base the decision you make on the facts and the law.
First, you must determine the facts from the evidence received in the trial, and not from any other source. A fact is something proved by the evidence or by a stipulation. A stipulation is an agreement between the attorneys regarding the facts.
Second, you must apply the law that I state to you to the facts as you determine them, and in this way arrive at your verdict and any finding you are instructed to include in your verdict. You must accept and follow the law as I state it to you regardless of whether you agree with it or not. If anything concerning the law said by the attorneys in their arguments or at any other time during the trial conflicts with my instructions on the law, you must follow my instructions.
You must not be influenced by pity for the defendant, or by prejudice against him. You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer or assume from any or all them that he is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.
During the guilt phase of this trial, you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. Both the people and the defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law, and reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences.
If an objection is sustained to a question, do not guess what the answer might have been. Do not speculate as to the reason for the objection. Do not assume to be true any insinuation suggested by a question Statements made by the attorneys during the trial are not evidence. However, if the attorneys stipulate or agree to a fact, you must regard that fact as proven as to the party or parties making the stipulation. asked a witness. A question is not evidence, and may be considered only as it helps you understand the answer.
Do not consider for any purpose any offer of evidence that is rejected, or any evidence that is stricken by the Court. Treat it as though you had never heard it.
You must not independently investigate the facts or the law, or consider or discuss facts as to which there is no evidence. This means, for example, that you must not, on your own, visit the scene, conduct experiments, or consult reference works or persons for additional information.
You must not converse among yourselves or with anyone else on any subject connected with this trial except when all the following conditions exist:
A) the case has been submitted to you for your decision by the Court following arguments by counsel and jury instructions;
B) you are discussing the case with a fellow juror; and,
C) all twelve jurors and no other persons are present in the jury deliberating room.
You must not read or listen to any accounts or discussions of the case reported by the newspapers or other news media, including radio, television, internet, or any other electronic source.
You have been given notebooks and pencils. Leave them on your seat when you leave each day and at each recess. You will be able to take them into the jury room when you deliberate. A word of caution. You may take notes. However, you should not permit note taking to distract you from the ongoing proceedings. Remember, you are the judges of the believability of the witnesses. Notes are only an aid to memory, and should not take precedence over recollection. A juror who does not take notes should rely on his or her recollection of the evidence and not be influenced by the fact that other jurors do take notes. Notes are for the note taker's own personal use in refreshing his or her recollection of the evidence. Should a discrepancy exist between a juror's recollection of the evidence and a juror's notes, or between a juror's recollection and that of another, you have a right to and may request that the reporter read back the relevant testimony, which must prevail.
You will be permitted to separate at recesses. You must return following recesses at such time as I instruct. During recesses you must not discuss with anyone any subject connected with this trial.
As for the alternate jurors, you are bound by all of those admonitions. You must not converse among yourselves, or with anyone else on any subject connected with this trial, or form or express any opinion upon it until the case is submitted to you, which means until such time as you are substituted in for one of the twelve jurors and begin deliberating on this case. This means that you must not decide how you would vote if you were deliberating with the other jurors, and that you must not form or express an opinion about this case unless and until you have been substituted in as a juror in this case.
You must

[Lavindar]

IMO, I agree with Sassy. Why would he? Because the SW expired, how about that? Maybe if they can get the original records unsealed, we will then know based on what evidence a SW was issued.
IMO, the judge might have realized that they had no evidence, just one detectives "gut", (and a very fat gut it is), feeling.

Since the SW expired, and since there was no body, no sign of a struggle of any kind, then there was NO evidence Laci was dead, so maybe Old Al felt he wouldn't be able to obtain another SW. What better way to get what you want? IMO, Old Al knew about Kim's history.

In most cases, an abductor will join searches for the missing person they abducted. I've seen it happen many times. Who knows how Al knew about Kim's record, but let's assume he did.

I don't believe for a second that Scott hired Kim to do it to make it look like Laci came back. That is the most redicules thing I have ever heard.


WHAT IS THIS?

[Lavindar]

IMO, I agree with Sassy. Why would he? Because the SW expired, how about that? Maybe if they can get the original records unsealed, we will then know based on what evidence a SW was issued.
IMO, the judge might have realized that they had no evidence, just one detectives "gut", (and a very fat gut it is), feeling.

Since the SW expired, and since there was no body, no sign of a struggle of any kind, then there was NO evidence Laci was dead, so maybe Old Al felt he wouldn't be able to obtain another SW. What better way to get what you want? IMO, Old Al knew about Kim's history.

In most cases, an abductor will join searches for the missing person they abducted. I've seen it happen many times. Who knows how Al knew about Kim's record, but let's assume he did.


I don't believe for a second that Scott hired Kim to do it to make it look like Laci came back. That is the most redicules thing I have ever heard.

Didn't Scott say he searched also?